39 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,328 times 40 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"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 113,131 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
Ricci v. DeStefano
557 U.S. 557 (2009) Cited 3,059 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that a city's making promotion decisions based on race would violate Title VII without a "valid defense"
BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.
498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 293 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding that an actor is liable for infringement under § 271 if it acts through an agent or contracts with another to perform one or more steps of a claimed method
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.
157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 379 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "jury instruction on patent misuse" was overbroad, where it "focused primarily on the charge that [the patent holder] was attempting to enforce the patents against goods known not to be infringing"
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 250 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that inventor's unwitnessed notebook was not adequate corroborating evidence of an earlier invention date
Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear
379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 279 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that term “circuit” itself in claim term “ ‘circuit’ for ‘monitoring a signal from the output terminal to generate a first feedback signal’ ” connotes structure
Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.
802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Cited 469 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that notebook entries not witnessed until several months to a year after entry did not render them "incredible or necessarily of little corroborative value" under the circumstances and in view of other corroborating evidence
Price v. Symsek
988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 312 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.
40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 285 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,775 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses
35 U.S.C. § 282 Cited 3,896 times 134 Legal Analyses
Granting a presumption of validity to patents
Section 256 - Correction of named inventor
35 U.S.C. § 256 Cited 663 times 63 Legal Analyses
Permitting correction of inventorship "[w]henever . . . through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part"
Section 116 - Inventors
35 U.S.C. § 116 Cited 339 times 23 Legal Analyses
Providing that, outside the IPR context, "the Director may permit the application to be amended" to fix inventorship errors
Section 135 - Derivation proceedings
35 U.S.C. § 135 Cited 286 times 43 Legal Analyses
Governing interferences

Rubin et al v. The General Hospital

39 Cited authorities

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, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

Holding that a city's making promotion decisions based on race would violate Title VII without a "valid defense"

Holding that an actor is liable for infringement under § 271 if it acts through an agent or contracts with another to perform one or more steps of a claimed method

Holding that a "jury instruction on patent misuse" was overbroad, where it "focused primarily on the charge that [the patent holder] was attempting to enforce the patents against goods known not to be infringing"

Finding that inventor's unwitnessed notebook was not adequate corroborating evidence of an earlier invention date

Holding that term “circuit” itself in claim term “ ‘circuit’ for ‘monitoring a signal from the output terminal to generate a first feedback signal’ ” connotes structure

Holding that notebook entries not witnessed until several months to a year after entry did not render them "incredible or necessarily of little corroborative value" under the circumstances and in view of other corroborating evidence

Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

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

Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Permitting correction of inventorship "[w]henever . . . through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part"

Providing that, outside the IPR context, "the Director may permit the application to be amended" to fix inventorship errors

Governing interferences