§Why CasetextPricing

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

RESPONSE in Opposition to 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment OF PATENT INVALIDITY OF PLAINTIFFS U.S. PATENTS NOS. 8,067,381 AND 8,129,422

43 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,371 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  2. 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"

  3. Elrod v. Burns

    427 U.S. 347 (1976)   Cited 4,236 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that local government could not constitutionally base public employment opportunities on political affiliation or nonaffiliation

  4. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,158 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  5. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.

    442 U.S. 330 (1979)   Cited 1,160 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "injury to business or property" was not limited to commercial interests

  6. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp.

    299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,445 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a patentee may define a claim term by implication, through the term's consistent use throughout the specification

  7. Catalina Market. Intern. v. Coolsavings.com

    289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 649 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the claims, specification, and prosecution history of the041 patent demonstrate that the preamble phrase `located at predesignated sites such as consumer stores' is not a limitation of Claim 1," for "the applicant did not rely on this phrase to define its invention nor is the phrase essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body"

  8. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

    251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 377 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the best mode does not extend to unclaimed, non-novel subject matter

  9. Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University

    212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 375 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the objective evidence supported an obviousness finding where others had “tried for a long time” to develop the claimed invention but found it “very hard” and “were all not successful”

  10. Bell Communications v. Vitalink Communications

    55 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 414 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that part-time infringement is nonetheless infringement

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,289 times   1031 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  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 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,906 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  15. Section 321 - Definitions; generally

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

  16. 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

  17. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 538 times   883 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  18. Section 1.951 - Options after Office action closing prosecution in inter partes reexamination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.951   Cited 4 times

    (a) After an Office action closing prosecution in an inter partes reexamination, the patent owner may once file comments limited to the issues raised in the Office action closing prosecution. The comments can include a proposed amendment to the claims, which amendment will be subject to the criteria of § 1.116 as to whether or not it shall be admitted. The comments must be filed within the time set for response in the Office action closing prosecution. (b) When the patent owner does file comments