§Why CasetextPricing

Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Woodbolt Distribution, LLC et al

REPLY in Support of 63 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment

16 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,523 times   180 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. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.

    471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 517 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the record supported jury verdict of no induced infringement where it showed defendant contacted an Australian attorney and "obtained letters from U.S. patent counsel advising that [its product] did not infringe"

  3. Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Industries, L.P.

    323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 176 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the applicant to the “restrictive claim construction that was argued during prosecution” where he “never retracted any of his statements”

  4. Northern Telecom v. Samsung Electronics

    215 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 171 times
    Holding that prosecution disclaimer did not "support the judicial narrowing of a clear claim term" because the inventors' statements were amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations

  5. Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. Glaxosmithkline

    349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 137 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that later patent claiming pharmaceutical composition was obvious variant of earlier patent claiming pharmaceutical composition with "enhanced storage stability, the closed container, the packaged unit-dosages"

  6. Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America

    975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 171 times
    Holding that " claim of trade dress infringement fails if secondary meaning did not exist before the infringement began" and placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff

  7. Charles Greiner & Co. v. Mari-Med Mfg., Inc.

    962 F.2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 57 times
    Discussing role of doctrine in preventing "fraud on a patent"

  8. Pall Corp. v. PTI Technologies Inc.

    259 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the relevant inquiry is what one of ordinary skill in the art would believe to have been disclosed by the prior art

  9. Tesco Corporation v. Weatherford International Inc.

    722 F. Supp. 2d 755 (S.D. Tex. 2010)   Cited 19 times
    Noting that where parties are direct competitors, stay would likely prejudice nonmovant and finding that stay would prejudice patent holder's "rights to exclusive use of technology on which it holds a valid patent."

  10. MGM Well Services., Inc. v. Mega Lift System LLC

    505 F. Supp. 2d 359 (S.D. Tex. 2007)   Cited 2 times

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-05-1634. April 25, 2007. Joseph Dean Lechtenberger, Howrey LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff. Kent A. Rowald, Ira Phillip Domnitz, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Houston, TX, William Prickett, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ATLAS, District Judge. Plaintiff MGM Well Services, Inc. ("MGM") filed this patent infringement lawsuit against Mega Lift Systems, LLC ("Mega Lift"). The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)

  11. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,067 times   1055 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  12. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,066 times   464 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 5,945 times   964 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 321 - Definitions; generally

    21 U.S.C. § 321   Cited 1,169 times   165 Legal Analyses
    Defining “new drug”

  15. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 594 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  16. Section 317 - Settlement

    35 U.S.C. § 317   Cited 37 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Addressing continuation of IPR as to some petitioners after dismissal of others