C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.
388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 871 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that after initial examination the claim in suit “[did] not necessarily require” that a surgical device be “pleated” but that arguments made during reexamination constituted a “clear disclaimer of scope” requiring “pleating”
Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg
849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 653 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard
Spectrum Intl., Inc. v. Sterilite Corp.
164 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 295 times 1 Legal AnalysesNoting that "explicit arguments made [by the applicant] during prosecution" are significant and that "by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover"
Section 317 - Settlement
35 U.S.C. § 317 Cited 37 times 45 Legal AnalysesAddressing continuation of IPR as to some petitioners after dismissal of others