§Why CasetextPricing

Viasat, Inc. et al v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc.

MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law

36 Cited authorities

  1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,187 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

  2. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.

    525 U.S. 55 (1998)   Cited 422 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the invention must be ready for patenting" to trigger the on-sale bar

  3. Lucent Technologies v. Gateway

    580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 747 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "we see little evidentiary basis under Georgia-Pacific" for the damages award

  4. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 587 times   76 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  5. 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”

  6. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

    339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 337 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim invalid as anticipated when it claimed compounds in Markush form and a prior art reference disclosed one of the claimed compounds

  7. Pavao v. Pagay

    307 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 327 times
    Holding that the court may not grant a new trial "simply because the court would have arrived at a different verdict"

  8. U.S. v. Kellington

    217 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 334 times
    Holding that where appellate court reversed a judgment of acquittal but did not rule on a motion for new trial, the rule of mandate did not require the district court to deny the new trial motion

  9. Technology v. Videotek

    545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 246 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that use of term “black box” did not render the claim indefinite because that term was known in the field to represent video standard detector circuitry

  10. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 299 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  11. Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59   Cited 43,725 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"

  12. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,290 times   1032 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 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 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