§Why CasetextPricing

Kaavo Inc. v. Tier 3 Inc. et al

BRIEF

49 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 237,147 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 217,112 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

    573 U.S. 208 (2014)   Cited 1,377 times   508 Legal Analyses
    Holding ineligible patent claims directed to the concept of "intermediated settlement," i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation

  4. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,357 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

  5. Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Limited Partnership

    564 U.S. 91 (2011)   Cited 1,160 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 282 ’s presumption of validity in litigation imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard on defendants seeking to prove invalidity

  6. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,735 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  7. Bilski v. Kappos

    561 U.S. 593 (2010)   Cited 807 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

  8. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,158 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  9. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

    569 U.S. 576 (2013)   Cited 451 times   147 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated"

  10. O2 Micro Intern. v. Beyond Innov

    521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,218 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Fifth Circuit law the appellants' arguments on appeal regarding claim construction were not waived even though appellants did not object to the jury instructions because the arguments were made clear to the district court and the district court did not clearly indicate that it was open to changing its claim construction

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,074 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60   Cited 53,907 times   147 Legal Analyses
    Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

  13. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,289 times   1031 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  14. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,066 times   464 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  15. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,945 times   964 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  16. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,906 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  17. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,423 times   2203 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  18. Section 100 - Definitions

    35 U.S.C. § 100   Cited 613 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"

  19. Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents

    35 U.S.C. § 251   Cited 466 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Describing the reissue of defective patents