§

ABB, INC. v. ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION

09795777 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2014)
ABB, INC. v. ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION

16 Cited authorities

  1. Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.

    439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 275 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding arguments insufficiently developed in briefing are forfeited

  2. Mahurkar, v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 246 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a royalty needs to be only reasonable and that the "task [of determining a reasonable royalty] is simplified when the record shows an established royalty for the patent in question or for related patents or products"

  3. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  4. Adenta GmbH v. OrthoArm, Inc.

    501 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he [district] court was entitled to assume that [the patentee] acted in good faith in not disclosing the [cumulative sample] to the PTO because [it] believed it was cumulative to the . . . patent."

  5. Roy-G-Biv Corp. v. Abb, Ltd.

    63 F. Supp. 3d 690 (E.D. Tex. 2014)   Cited 11 times
    Discussing U.S. DIST. CT. RULES E.D. TEX., Patent Rule 3-1

  6. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH

    98 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 21 times

    No. 99 Civ. 3658 (SHS). May 16, 2000. OPINION STEIN, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 366 BACKGROUND ................................................................. 367 I. Purdue's Development of OxyContin ..................................... 367 II. Roxane's Development of Roxicodone SR ................................. 367 III. The Purdue Patents .................................................... 368 A. The Parent

  7. Ritter v. Rohm & Haas Co.

    271 F. Supp. 313 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)   Cited 23 times
    In Ritter v. Rohm Haas Co., 271 F. Supp. 313 (S.D.N Y 1967), the court stated at page 345 that where products are unwittingly produced, while the operators are in pursuit of other and different results, without exciting attention and without its even being known what was done or how it has been done, it would be absurd to hold that this is anticipation.

  8. Sperry Products, Inc. v. Aluminum Company of America

    171 F. Supp. 901 (N.D. Ohio 1959)   Cited 10 times
    In Sperry Products, Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 171 F. Supp. 901 (N.D.Ohio 1959), aff'd and mod. 285 F.2d 911 (6 Cir. 1960), cert. den. 368 U.S. 890, 82 S.Ct. 139, 7 L.Ed.2d 87 (1961), the Sixth Circuit found no misuse of the patents in suit as a result of a provision for licensing and cross-licensing of foreign patents (285 F.2d at 925-926).

  9. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,105 times   470 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  10. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,973 times   986 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  11. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 184 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"

  12. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 161 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  13. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 191 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  14. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  15. Section 42.64 - Objection; motion to exclude

    37 C.F.R. § 42.64   Cited 4 times   24 Legal Analyses

    (a)Deposition evidence. An objection to the admissibility of deposition evidence must be made during the deposition. Evidence to cure the objection must be provided during the deposition, unless the parties to the deposition stipulate otherwise on the deposition record. (b)Other evidence. For evidence other than deposition evidence: (1)Objection. Any objection to evidence submitted during a preliminary proceeding must be filed within ten business days of the institution of the trial. Once a trial

  16. Section 90.2 - Notice; service

    37 C.F.R. § 90.2   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)For an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 141 . (1) (i) In all appeals, the notice of appeal required by 35 U.S.C. 142 must be filed with the Director by electronic mail to the email address indicated on the United States Patent and Trademark Office's web page for the Office of the General Counsel. This electronically submitted notice will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday,