§

Beach et al. V. Padgett

13835352 - (J) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2020)
Beach et al. V. Padgett

17 Cited authorities

  1. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.

    802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 471 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that notebook entries not witnessed until several months to a year after entry did not render them "incredible or necessarily of little corroborative value" under the circumstances and in view of other corroborating evidence

  2. Martek Biosciences v. Nutrinova

    579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 213 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the patent specification explicitly defined the term "animal," the definition controlled and would not be limited based on preferred embodiments to non-human animals

  3. Price v. Symsek

    988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 317 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should consider all the evidence of conception and communication as a whole, not individually, and that "an inventor can conceivably prove prior conception by clear and convincing evidence although no one piece of evidence in and of itself establishes the prior conception."

  4. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 173 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-inventor's notebook did not corroborate reduction to practice because the non-inventor "did not testify regarding the notebook or the genuineness of its contents" and the district court was therefore "clearly reliant on the inventor to help identify the author of specific entries made in [the non-inventor's] notebook"

  5. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 151 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  6. Singh v. Brake

    317 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 66 times
    Ruling that a laboratory notebook entry did not corroborate an alleged conception because "[e]ven if the entry expressed the problem, it did not provide the solution"

  7. Singh v. Brake

    222 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the "concern that a party claiming inventorship might be tempted to describe his actions in an unjustifiably self-serving manner in order to obtain a patent or to maintain an existing patent"

  8. Kridl v. Mccormick

    105 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 46 times
    Stating that corroboration is "independent confirmation of the inventor’s testimony"

  9. Biogen Ma, Inc. v. Japanese Found. for Cancer Research

    785 F.3d 648 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 16 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over Board decisions

  10. Brown v. Barbacid

    276 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 31 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "an inventor's own unwitnessed documentation does not [independently] corroborate inventor's testimony about [conception]."

  11. 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"

  12. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  13. Section 41.127 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 41.127   Cited 9 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a)Effect within Office - (1)Estoppel. A judgment disposes of all issues that were, or by motion could have properly been, raised and decided. A losing party who could have properly moved for relief on an issue, but did not so move, may not take action in the Office after the judgment that is inconsistent with that party's failure to move, except that a losing party shall not be estopped with respect to any contested subject matter for which that party was awarded a favorable judgment. (2)Final disposal

  14. Section 41.125 - Decision on motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.125   Cited 8 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Allowing the Board to take up motions for decision in any order

  15. Section 41.208 - Content of substantive and responsive motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.208   Cited 6 times   60 Legal Analyses

    The general requirements for motions in contested cases are stated at § 41.121(c) . (a) In an interference, substantive motions must: (1) Raise a threshold issue, (2) Seek to change the scope of the definition of the interfering subject matter or the correspondence of claims to the count, (3) Seek to change the benefit accorded for the count, or (4) Seek judgment on derivation or on priority. (b) To be sufficient, a motion must provide a showing, supported with appropriate evidence, such that, if

  16. Section 41.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 41.8   Cited 2 times   6 Legal Analyses

    (a) In an appeal brief (§§ 41.37 , 41.67 , or 41.68 ) or at the initiation of a contested case (§ 41.101 ), and within 20 days of any change during the proceeding, a party must identify: (1) Its real party-in-interest, and (2) Each judicial or administrative proceeding that could affect, or be affected by, the Board proceeding. (b) For contested cases, a party seeking judicial review of a Board proceeding must file a notice with the Board of the judicial review within 20 days of the filing of the

  17. Section 41.205 - Settlement agreements

    37 C.F.R. § 41.205

    (a)Constructive notice; time for filing. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135(c) , an agreement or understanding, including collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of an interference must be filed prior to the termination of the interference between the parties to the agreement. After a final decision is entered by the Board, an interference is considered terminated when no appeal ( 35 U.S.C. 141 ) or other review ( 35 U.S.C. 146 ) has been or