§Why CasetextPricing

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

REPLY to Response to 63 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Seagate Technology

    497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 798 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement

  2. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

    314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 502 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “non-naturally occurring” and “not isolated” were structural elements defining the source of the claimed material, rather than steps for obtaining it

  3. Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips

    363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 316 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an expert's unsupported and conclusory assertions are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

  4. ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co.

    501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 236 times
    Holding that the patent owner must show actual infringement, rather than just the capability to infringe

  5. Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.

    6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 314 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that noninfringing acts may not be enjoined

  6. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.

    392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 132 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Noting that licenses "may constitute evidence of nonobviousness; however, only little weight can be attributed to such evidence if the patentee does not demonstrate a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record" (quoting In re GPAC Inc. , 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) )

  7. In re Schreiber

    128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 148 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency

  8. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.

    842 F.2d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 142 times
    Holding that, when applicable, the plain language of § 1498 shields contractors, subcontractors, and sub-subcontractors from liability

  9. Quad Envtl. Techs. Corp. v. Union Sanitary Dist.

    946 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 81 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a terminal disclaimer "is not an admission of obviousness of the later-filed claimed invention in light of the earlier- filed disclosure, for that is not the basis of the disclaimer."

  10. In re Spada

    911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claims were properly rejected by the PTO because they were anticipated by a prior art reference

  11. 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"

  12. 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

  13. Section 311 - Inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 311   Cited 399 times   186 Legal Analyses
    Establishing grounds and scope of IPR proceeding