Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.
937 F. Supp. 1015 (D. Conn. 1996) Cited 11 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Ethicon, the named inventor, whose invention used complex circuitry in a medical device, did not understand even basic terminology relating to electronics and was incapable of drawing rudimentary circuits.
Freeman v. Minnesota Min. and Mfg. Co.
675 F. Supp. 877 (D. Del. 1987) Cited 13 timesDenying summary judgment because a material question of fact as to enabling existed
Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Manbeck
751 F. Supp. 225 (D.D.C. 1990) Cited 7 timesCiv. A. No. 88-3656-OG. November 14, 1990. Raymond G. Hasley, Michael Kushnick, Rose, Schmidt, Hasley DiSalle (E. Wallace Breisch, of counsel), Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol., United States Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C., for defendant. OPINION BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge.[fn*] [fn*] Marion T. Bennett, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. 28 U.S.C. § 291(b) (1988)
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,053 times 75 Legal AnalysesHolding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,932 times 941 Legal AnalysesProhibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"