§

Hedman V. Slivka et al.

10102075 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)
Hedman V. Slivka et al.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Mfg. Co.

    744 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 249 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disqualification motions are procedural matters "that are not unique to patent issues . . ."

  2. Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

    684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 110 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption of validity needs to be overcome by clear and convincing evidence

  3. Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.

    504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 125 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court did not violate patent owner’s right to a jury trial by calculating an "ongoing royalty rate" for patent infringement in a bench trial

  4. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC

    683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 49 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding entry of Rule 54(b) judgment proper with respect to Cadbury commercial products but not Cadbury experimental products

  5. Davis v. Brouse McDowell

    596 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 39 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal patent law jurisdiction over alleged negligence with regard to preparing and filing applications before the PTO is proper if to succeed the plaintiff must establish it would have received a patent but for the alleged negligence

  6. 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]."

  7. In re Sullivan

    362 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 27 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the use of the Standing Order

  8. Herman Minkin & H&M Aeronaut Tool Co. v. Gibbons, P.C.

    680 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Indicating that summary judgment of invalidity may be available notwithstanding expert report supporting validity

  9. In re Van Geuns

    988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 91-1088. March 10, 1993. Jack E. Haken, U.S. Philips Corp., Tarrytown, NY, argued, for appellant. Fred E. McKelvey, Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued, for appellee. With him on the brief, was Lee E. Barrett, Associate Sol. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Before ARCHER, PLAGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges. ARCHER, Circuit Judge. Johannes R. Van Geuns appeals from the September 25, 1990 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office

  10. Kubota v. Shibuya

    999 F.2d 517 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Commissioner's interpretation that a declaration of interference is an interlocutory order presumed to be correct under 37 C.F.R. § 1.655

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,990 times   998 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   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences