27 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 237,184 times 38 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"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 217,149 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"
Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Pub. Co.
9 F.3d 913 (11th Cir. 1994) Cited 1,611 times
Holding that a thirty-day suspension without pay was an adverse employment action
Colorado v. New Mexico
467 U.S. 310 (1984) Cited 476 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that party with burden of persuasion may prevail only if he can “place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of [his] factual contentions are ‘highly probable.’ ”
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]”
Pfizer v. Apotex
480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 370 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art
Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc.
174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 274 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that although the claim elements "eyeglass hanger member" and "eyeglass contacting member" include a function, these claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claims themselves contain sufficient structural limitations for performing these functions
National Presto Industries v. West Bend Co.
76 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 240 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jury verdict must be sustained if it is supported by substantial evidence based on a review of the entirety of the record
Intervet America v. Kee-Vet Laboratories
887 F.2d 1050 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 231 times
Holding that erroneous statement made during prosecution does not limit claim scope because "[t]he claims themselves control"
Revolution Eyewear v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc.
563 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 95 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a component of an accused device meets "capable of engaging" limitation even though device is not designed or sold with component in engaging configuration
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 330,128 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
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
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
Section 251 - Reissue of defective patents
35 U.S.C. § 251 Cited 466 times 71 Legal Analyses
Describing the reissue of defective patents

Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v. Kids II, Inc.

27 Cited authorities

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"

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 a thirty-day suspension without pay was an adverse employment action

Holding that party with burden of persuasion may prevail only if he can “place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of [his] factual contentions are ‘highly probable.’ ”

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]”

Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

Holding that although the claim elements "eyeglass hanger member" and "eyeglass contacting member" include a function, these claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claims themselves contain sufficient structural limitations for performing these functions

Holding that a jury verdict must be sustained if it is supported by substantial evidence based on a review of the entirety of the record

Holding that erroneous statement made during prosecution does not limit claim scope because "[t]he claims themselves control"

Holding that a component of an accused device meets "capable of engaging" limitation even though device is not designed or sold with component in engaging configuration

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

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

Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Describing the reissue of defective patents