§Why CasetextPricing

Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al v. Gateway, Inc. et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity on the Asserted Claim of U.S. Patent No. 4,383,272 to Netravali, et al. Multimedia Patent Trust's Opposition to Dell's Motion for Summary Judgment Concerning Alleged Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 4,383,272

22 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,142 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 216,254 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. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,519 times   169 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  4. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,153 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  5. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 370 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  6. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 376 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the best mode does not extend to unclaimed, non-novel subject matter

  7. Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems

    308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 254 times
    Holding that the preambles at issue — "point of origin," "angle of rotation," and "scale" — did not limit the scope of the digitizer invention but simply described features that necessarily exit in any coordinate system for a digitizer

  8. Pharmastem v. Viacell

    491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 199 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "none of [the activities governed by 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)] refer to the provision of a service."

  9. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.

    234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 238 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court erred in failing to consider evidence of secondary considerations

  10. Takeda Chemical v. Alphapharm

    492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 152 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the invention not obvious to try because the prior art disclosed a broad selection of compounds that an ordinarily skilled artisan could have selected for further investigation

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,637 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 6,055 times   446 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 5,937 times   944 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"