28 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 237,021 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"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 113,479 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
Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc.
48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 573 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court did not clearly err in finding materiality where the prior art reference at issue had been considered material by examiners in related foreign patent applications
Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.
561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 266 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that an academic paper distributed among a limited set of professional colleagues is not a prior art publication
Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.
424 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 174 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Supreme Court's "ready for patenting test" set forth in Pfaff, a case concerning § 102(b)'s on-sale bar, "applies to the public use bar under § 102(b)"
Tokai Corp v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.
632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 147 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that regional circuit law governs the decision to exclude evidence
Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik v. Murata Mach
731 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1984) Cited 276 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that mere allegations do not create a material issue of fact if the nonmovant cannot "point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant."
Zenith Electronics Corp. v. PDI Communication Systems, Inc.
522 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 111 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether prior art was in public use on basis of witness testimony, documentary evidence, patentee's admissions
Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad
295 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 99 times 5 Legal Analyses
Concluding that an offer to make a "remote database object ... in exchange for four months full time employment or no more than $48,000" was a "commercial offer for sale"
Myspace, Inc. v. Graphon Corp.
672 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 57 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that "in construing a claim there are two limiting factors what was invented, and what exactly was claimed," with the former determined by looking to "the entire patent, with particular attention to the specification"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,902 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,944 times 960 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States
35 U.S.C. § 120 Cited 593 times 109 Legal Analyses
Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application
Section 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority
35 U.S.C. § 119 Cited 269 times 70 Legal Analyses
Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application
Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
35 U.S.C. § 6 Cited 182 times 63 Legal Analyses
Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"
Section 1.78 - Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications
37 C.F.R. § 1.78 Cited 65 times 30 Legal Analyses
Explaining that an applicant can file a continuation application to adjust claims of the patent

Worlds, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al

28 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, 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 district court did not clearly err in finding materiality where the prior art reference at issue had been considered material by examiners in related foreign patent applications

Holding that an academic paper distributed among a limited set of professional colleagues is not a prior art publication

Holding that the Supreme Court's "ready for patenting test" set forth in Pfaff, a case concerning § 102(b)'s on-sale bar, "applies to the public use bar under § 102(b)"

Holding that regional circuit law governs the decision to exclude evidence

Holding that mere allegations do not create a material issue of fact if the nonmovant cannot "point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant."

Finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether prior art was in public use on basis of witness testimony, documentary evidence, patentee's admissions

Concluding that an offer to make a "remote database object ... in exchange for four months full time employment or no more than $48,000" was a "commercial offer for sale"

Holding that "in construing a claim there are two limiting factors what was invented, and what exactly was claimed," with the former determined by looking to "the entire patent, with particular attention to the specification"

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

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

Explaining that an applicant can file a continuation application to adjust claims of the patent