§Why CasetextPricing

Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Harman International Industries, Inc.

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment That Claims 1, 42 and 45 of the 685 Patent are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 102

26 Cited authorities

  1. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.

    525 U.S. 55 (1998)   Cited 421 times   45 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 495 times   7 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 389 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 271 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 276 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 137 times   4 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 98 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that an offer to make a "remote database object ... in exchange for four months full time employment or no more than $48,000" was a "commercial offer for sale"

  8. In re Klopfenstein

    380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 75 times   17 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. New Railhead Mfg. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.

    298 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 73 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that performance of the claimed method of drilling in rock at a commercial jobsite under public land, hidden from view, constituted public use

  10. 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

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,935 times   941 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 3,892 times   132 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents