§Why CasetextPricing

Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N'Care, Ltd. et al

MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Patent Infringement claim DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 50 DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

35 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,519 times   168 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"

  2. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 5,127 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor testimony as to "[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the prosecution history)."

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,153 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.

    340 U.S. 147 (1950)   Cited 982 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding obvious a combination of old elements which perform the same function in combination and individually

  5. United States v. Adams

    383 U.S. 39 (1966)   Cited 478 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to ignore long-accepted factors in the field of wet batters to arrive at the claimed invention

  6. A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Const. Co.

    960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 654 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that equitable estoppel is a cognizable defense against patent infringement

  7. Poweroasis v. T-Mobile

    522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 347 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patentee had the burden to come forward with evidence to prove entitlement to an earlier filing date when it was undisputed that a certain reference was invalidating prior art

  8. American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc.

    725 F.2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 563 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 282 codified the common law presumption of validity based on “the basic proposition that a government agency such as the [PTO] was presumed to do its job.” (citing Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U.S. 120, 124, 14 S.Ct. 772, 38 L.Ed. 657 (1894) (the PTO is “a special tribunal, intrusted with full power in the premises”))

  9. 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."

  10. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

    849 F.2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 319 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is improper to read a limitation "into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim."

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,589 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 6,054 times   445 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   943 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,895 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents