49 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 244,435 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 223,383 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,576 times 189 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"
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical
520 U.S. 17 (1997) Cited 1,733 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyokabushiki Co.
535 U.S. 722 (2002) Cited 826 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."
Graham v. John Deere Co.
383 U.S. 1 (1966) Cited 3,190 times 68 Legal Analyses
Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.
572 U.S. 915 (2014) Cited 232 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that because a "method patent ... is not infringed unless all the steps are carried out," a competitor did not induce direct infringement of a method patent merely by "carr[ying] out some steps constituting a method patent and encourag[ing] others to carry out the remaining steps"
Lucent Technologies v. Gateway
580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 789 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that "we see little evidentiary basis under Georgia-Pacific" for the damages award
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 433 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence relying on "25 percent rule of thumb," which was a tool used to approximate the reasonable royalty rate the manufacturer of patented product would be willing to offer to pay to the patentee during a hypothetical negotiation, was inadmissible under Daubert since it failed to tie a reasonably royalty base to facts of case at issue
Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek
424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 359 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 340,828 times 164 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,250 times 1095 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,173 times 493 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."
Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights
35 U.S.C. § 154 Cited 783 times 278 Legal Analyses
Granting twenty years for utility patents

Nalco Company v. Turner Design, Inc

49 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

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"

Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"

Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

Holding that because a "method patent ... is not infringed unless all the steps are carried out," a competitor did not induce direct infringement of a method patent merely by "carr[ying] out some steps constituting a method patent and encourag[ing] others to carry out the remaining steps"

Holding that "we see little evidentiary basis under Georgia-Pacific" for the damages award

Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Holding that testing is a "use"

Granting twenty years for utility patents