Cooter Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.
496 U.S. 384 (1990) Cited 4,147 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that it is necessarily an abuse of discretion to apply the wrong legal standard
Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.
54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 967 times 8 Legal AnalysesHolding that "sputter-deposited dielectric" could not be formed by a two-step process because patentee argued during prosecution that it was formed by a one-step process
Holgate v. Baldwin
425 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 411 timesHolding that we “enforce [Rule 11's] safe harbor provision strictly”
Christian v. Mattel, Inc.
286 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 389 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that before filing a complaint, a party is obligated under Rule 11 to investigate the applicable facts and law to ensure that the claims have merit
Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.
441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 330 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding a patent claim construction that reads limitations out of a claim is "contrary to the principle that claim language should not [be] treated as meaningless"
Festo v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki
344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 215 times 8 Legal AnalysesHolding that resolution of the foreseeability criterion depends on the underlying facts
Texas Instruments v. U.S. Intl. Trade Com'n
988 F.2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 270 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that " 'whereby' clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim."
Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Industries, L.P.
323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 176 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding the applicant to the “restrictive claim construction that was argued during prosecution” where he “never retracted any of his statements”
Tronzo v. Biomet
156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 195 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding substantial evidence did not support finding that parent application provided written description of later-claimed genus encompassing any shape where it "tout[ed] the advantages of conical shape," mentioned other shapes only in reciting the prior art, and "specifically distinguishe[d] the prior art as inferior"
Pharmacia Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm
170 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 174 times 5 Legal AnalysesFinding the weight of authority in agreement that a judgment is final for estoppel purposes notwithstanding the filing of post-trial motions.
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 36,040 times 145 Legal AnalysesHolding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney