18 Cited authorities

Herbert v. Lando
441 U.S. 153 (1979) Cited 1,587 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the relevancy of deposing a defendant publisher in a defamation case about his conduct and mental state could "hardly be doubted" even if the defendant was unlikely to admit to liable conduct in the deposition
Hickman v. Taylor
329 U.S. 495 (1947) Cited 6,496 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
785 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1986) Cited 938 times
Holding that the objecting party must demonstrate that a particularized harm is likely to occur
Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.
135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 336 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding "as a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit"
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.
40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 285 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception
Sinclair Rfg. Co. v. Jenkins Co.
289 U.S. 689 (1933) Cited 211 times
Finding in the patent dispute context that when years have passed between the date of the purported wrong to the date of trial, subsequent events constitute a "book of wisdom that courts may not neglect"
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO Corp.
990 F.2d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 80 times 12 Legal Analyses
Finding claim for patent infringement, seeking patent assignment, was compulsory counterclaim to an action for a declaration of non-infringement, which sought no affirmative relief
Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. PMR Technologies, Ltd.
292 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 54 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a patent unenforceable when two named inventors deliberately excluded a true inventor from the patent application and concealed the true inventor's participation from the prosecuting attorneys
Washington v. Department of Transp
8 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 61 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a witness's testimony regarding "what he would have done" in a particular situation because that opinion was speculative and not based on personal knowledge
In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation
168 F.R.D. 651 (D. Kan. 1996) Cited 55 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an attempt to discover factual contentions and legal positions from a party's Answer through a Rule 30(b) deposition "is overbroad, inefficient, and unreasonable," and "implicates serious privilege concerns ...
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 95,025 times 653 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,085 times 126 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,938 times 946 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 256 - Correction of named inventor
35 U.S.C. § 256 Cited 663 times 63 Legal Analyses
Permitting correction of inventorship "[w]henever . . . through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part"

Miller et al v. Treado et al

18 Cited authorities

Holding that the relevancy of deposing a defendant publisher in a defamation case about his conduct and mental state could "hardly be doubted" even if the defendant was unlikely to admit to liable conduct in the deposition

Holding that the objecting party must demonstrate that a particularized harm is likely to occur

Holding "as a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit"

Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

Finding in the patent dispute context that when years have passed between the date of the purported wrong to the date of trial, subsequent events constitute a "book of wisdom that courts may not neglect"

Finding claim for patent infringement, seeking patent assignment, was compulsory counterclaim to an action for a declaration of non-infringement, which sought no affirmative relief

Holding a patent unenforceable when two named inventors deliberately excluded a true inventor from the patent application and concealed the true inventor's participation from the prosecuting attorneys

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a witness's testimony regarding "what he would have done" in a particular situation because that opinion was speculative and not based on personal knowledge

Holding that an attempt to discover factual contentions and legal positions from a party's Answer through a Rule 30(b) deposition "is overbroad, inefficient, and unreasonable," and "implicates serious privilege concerns ...

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Permitting correction of inventorship "[w]henever . . . through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part"