§

Hyatt V. FIELD

10440308 - (J) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2014)
Hyatt V. FIELD

20 Cited authorities

  1. Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.

    757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 457 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when deciding whether the means test is triggered, the question is whether "in view of the specification, prosecution history, etc.," the patent "still provide sufficient structure such that the presumption against means-plus-function claiming remains intact"

  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. Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories

    849 F.2d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 372 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the grant of a preliminary injunction was based on more than an unwarranted presumption of irreparable harm where the district court found the patentee would suffer lost market position and obstructed business relationships in the market

  4. 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

  5. Radio Corp. v. Radio Laboratories

    293 U.S. 1 (1934)   Cited 259 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the “presumption [of patent validity should] not to be overthrown except by clear and cogent evidence.”

  6. Coleman v. Dines

    754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 95 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Coleman v. Dines (1985) 754 F.2d 353 (Coleman), the appellant testified that he conceived the invention at issue in that case prior to the date of the respondent's patent, and he relied on a letter he sent to a colleague about his work as corroboration for his testimony.

  7. Brown v. Barbacid

    436 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining that six single-day gaps in a 31–day critical period did not defeat a showing of reasonable diligence

  8. Hahn v. Wong

    892 F.2d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 43 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Corroborating evidence must be "independent of information received from the inventor"

  9. Holmwood v. Sugavanam

    948 F.2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding prior reduction to practice in the United States based on domestic testing of a foreign fungicide, proof of which was established through oral testimony and test results

  10. Biogen Idec MA, Inc. v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research

    38 F. Supp. 3d 162 (D. Mass. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    Civil No. 13–13061–FDS. 05-22-2014 BIOGEN IDEC MA, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAPANESE FOUNDATION FOR CANCER RESEARCH and Bayer Pharma AG, Defendants. E. Anthony Figg, R. Danny Huntington, Seth E. Cockrum, Sharon E. Crane, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck P.C., Washington, DC, Claire Laporte, Donald R. Ware, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff. Nels Lippert, Tarter, Krinsky & Drogin LLP, Paula Estrada De Martin, S. Calvin Walden, Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, Elisabeth M

  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. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 4,842 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

  13. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

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

  14. Section 3-C:4 - Construction

    N.H. Rev. Stat. § 3-C:4   Cited 3 times

    This chapter shall not be construed in any way to infringe on the rights of citizens under the state constitution or the constitution of the United States in the use of language in activities or functions conducted in the private sector. No agency or officer of the state or of any political subdivision of the state shall place any restrictions or requirements regarding language usage for businesses operating in the private sector other than in official documents, forms, submissions, or other communications

  15. Section 5-B:6 - Declaration of Status; Tax Exemption; Liability

    N.H. Rev. Stat. § 5-B:6   Cited 1 times

    I.Any pooled risk management program meeting the standards required under this chapter is not an insurance company, reciprocal insurer, or insurer under the laws of this state, and administration of any activities of the plan shall not constitute doing an insurance business for purposes of regulation or taxation. II.Any such program operating under this chapter, whether or not a body corporate, may sue or be sued; make contracts; hold and dispose of real property; and borrow money, contract debts

  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