§

Cinberg V. Kiderman et al.

13567670 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2017)
Cinberg V. Kiderman et al.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.

    135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 341 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding "as a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit"

  2. 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

  3. Martek Biosciences v. Nutrinova

    579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 216 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

  4. 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."

  5. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

    40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 289 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

  6. Sewall v. Walters

    21 F.3d 411 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 87 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventorship is a question of law

  7. 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

  8. Dawson v. Dawson

    710 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 14 times   5 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 2012–1214 2012–1215 2012–1216 2012–1217. 2013-03-25 Chandler DAWSON, Appellant, v. Chandler DAWSON and Lyle Bowman, Cross–Appellant. Steven B. Kelber, Berenato & White, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, argued for appellant. Joel M. Freed, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for cross-appellant. With him on the brief were Natalia Blinkova and Aamer Ahmed. BRYSON Steven B. Kelber, Berenato & White, LLC, of Bethesda, Maryland, argued for appellant. Joel M. Freed, McDermott Will &

  9. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,983 times   993 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  10. Section 116 - Inventors

    35 U.S.C. § 116   Cited 344 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Providing that, outside the IPR context, "the Director may permit the application to be amended" to fix inventorship errors

  11. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. Section 90.1 - Scope

    37 C.F.R. § 90.1   Cited 2 times

    The provisions herein govern judicial review for Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions under chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code. Judicial review of decisions arising out of inter partes reexamination proceedings that are requested under 35 U.S.C. 311 , and where available, judicial review of decisions arising out of interferences declared pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135 continue to be governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1, 2012. 37 C.F.R. §90.1

  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