21 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 204,929 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is 'genuine,' that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
  2. Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips

    363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 287 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that affidavits of two experts did not create material factual dispute where expert declarations "contribute[d] little other than . . . conclusory opinion"
  3. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.

    802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 448 times   11 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
  4. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S

    108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 308 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a preliminary injunction should not issue if defendant raises a substantial question as to validity, enforceability, or infringement
  5. Liebel-Flarsheim v. Medrad

    481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 144 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid claims that had been given a broad construction at the patentee's behest in an earlier appeal
  6. Atlas Powder Company v. Ireco Incorporated

    190 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 149 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding asserted claims covering air mixed into an explosive composition anticipated by prior art that necessarily also contained air as claimed, even though benefits of the air were not recognized
  7. Sitrick v. Dreamworks

    516 F.3d 993 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 114 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment that claims were invalid for lack of enablement when the claims encompassed both video games and movies, but the specification did not enable the invention for use in movies
  8. Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp.

    908 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 171 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that amendment made as of right under MPEP weighs against an inference of intent to deceive
  9. Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.

    363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 85 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an earlier application must enable later claims that claim priority to the earlier filing date
  10. Transco Products v. Performance Contracting

    38 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 100 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an invention is entitled to the filing date of parent applications if it is supported by the disclosure in the parent applications
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 285,057 times   129 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 6,686 times   829 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
  13. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 564 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Allowing filing as a continuation application if filed before all applications in the chain issue