§Why CasetextPricing

Kenu, Inc. v. Belkin International, Inc.

MOTION for Summary Judgment that the '714 Patent and the 'D707 Patent are Not Invalid

22 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 216,641 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"

  2. Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Limited Partnership

    564 U.S. 91 (2011)   Cited 1,153 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

  3. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.

    561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 266 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an academic paper distributed among a limited set of professional colleagues is not a prior art publication

  4. Mahurkar, v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 245 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a royalty needs to be only reasonable and that the "task [of determining a reasonable royalty] is simplified when the record shows an established royalty for the patent in question or for related patents or products"

  5. National Presto Industries v. West Bend Co.

    76 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 240 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a jury verdict must be sustained if it is supported by substantial evidence based on a review of the entirety of the record

  6. Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp.

    845 F.2d 981 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 188 times
    Holding that patent's inclusion of examples of "external" plasticizers did not prove that patent claims excluded internal plasticizers

  7. Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Railway Products, Inc.

    320 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 122 times
    Holding that defendant's arguments were waived when they were not raised in response to the motion for summary judgment

  8. Typeright Keyboard v. Microsoft Corp.

    374 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 107 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in some circumstances, summary judgment may be inappropriate when the credibility of an affiant is drawn into question

  9. Riverwood Intern. v. R.A. Jones Co.

    324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that regional circuit law applies to the procedural aspects of a motion for new trial

  10. Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.

    721 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 112 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court's error was, however, harmless in light of other considerations

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 329,337 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,060 times   453 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."

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,941 times   957 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 285 - Attorney fees

    35 U.S.C. § 285   Cited 3,203 times   479 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases

  15. Section 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

    35 U.S.C. § 119   Cited 269 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

  16. Section 1.1 - Addresses for non-trademark correspondence with the United States Patent and Trademark Office

    37 C.F.R. § 1.1   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)In general. Except for correspondence submitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system in accordance with § 1.6(a)(4) , all correspondence intended for the USPTO must be addressed to either "Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450" or to specific areas within the Office as provided in this section. When appropriate, correspondence should also be marked for the attention of a particular office