26 Cited authorities

  1. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.

    525 U.S. 55 (1998)   Cited 395 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the invention must be ready for patenting" to trigger the on-sale bar
  2. Allen Engineering v. Bartell Industries

    299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 454 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite
  3. Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Systems

    917 F.2d 544 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 379 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for officers "to be personally liable for [their employer's] infringement under section 271, there must be evidence to justify piercing the corporate veil"
  4. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc.

    793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 262 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sales of product with instructions to use product in an infringing manner may constitute circumstantial evidence that customers would use the product in the manner directed
  5. Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik v. Murata Mach

    731 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 266 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mere allegations do not create a material issue of fact if the nonmovant cannot "point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant."
  6. Cargill, Inc. v. Canbra Foods, Ltd.

    476 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 127 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an applicant's argument that the information was withheld in "`good faith' does not negate an intent to manipulate the evidence" when "an applicant knows or obviously should know that information would be material to the examiner"
  7. Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad

    295 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 90 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Asking only “whether there was any confidentiality obligation imposed on persons who observed the use,” with no limitation on its source
  8. In re Klopfenstein

    380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 71 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether a reference is publicly accessible is based on the “facts and circumstances surrounding the reference's disclosure to members of the public”
  9. EZ Dock v. Schafer Systems, Inc.

    276 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Denying summary judgment where public use of a dock, sold to a customer, might be experimental where the location of the dock had different conditions than that of the prototype
  10. TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc.

    724 F.2d 965 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 117 times
    Holding that an inventor's precritical date experimental use of his dental appliance invention on three orthodontic patients was not a bar under section 102(b)
  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,562 times   817 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
  12. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,665 times   122 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents