§

Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

09718695 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2014)
Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc.

    148 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 162 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence did not meet clear and convincing standard required to show anticipation, despite corroborating testimony of four witnesses, where the witnesses were related to defendant by blood or long friendship, and no corroborating physical evidence was submitted despite defendant's assertion that he had used the invention for more than ten years

  3. 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

  4. Slip Track Systems, Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc.

    304 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where "the parties . . . dispute only whether one limitation is part of the interfering subject matter, and determination of this issue is dependent upon issues of law alone, we will resolve this issue on appeal."

  5. SUN STUDS, INC. v. ATA EQUIP. LEASING, INC

    872 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that "the entire disclosure of [a prior patent's] specification is effective as a reference"

  6. Scott v. Finney

    34 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 51 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Addressing reduction to practice in the priority context

  7. Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Matsushita Elec

    266 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the date on which an invention is “made” for purposes of priority under 102(g) is the earlier of either “a reduction to practice, or conception of the invention plus diligence to actual or constructive reduction to practice.”

  8. In re Giacomini

    612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2009-1400. July 7, 2010. Jason Paul Demont, DeMont Breyer, LLC, of Holmdel, NJ, argued for appellants. With him on the brief was Robert L. Greenberg. Of counsel was Josephine A. Paltin. Thomas L. Stoll, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Thomas W. Krause, Associate Solicitor. Before RADER, Chief

  9. DSL Dynamic Sciences Ltd. v. Union Switch & Signal, Inc.

    928 F.2d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 17 times

    No. 90-1395. March 19, 1991. Bruce E. O'Connor, Christensen, O'Connor, Johnson Kindness, Seattle, Wash., argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Michael W. Bocianowski. William B. Mallin, Eckert Seamans Cherin Mellott, Pittsburgh, Pa., argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Arnold B. Silverman and David V. Radack. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Before RICH, PLAGER, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. RICH, Circuit

  10. Steinberg v. Seitz

    517 F.2d 1359 (C.C.P.A. 1975)   Cited 18 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that diligence is only relevant where the first to conceive is also the second to reduce to practice

  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 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"

  13. 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)

  14. Section 42.73 - Judgment

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

  15. 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,