§

Sensio Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.

29429230 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2015)
Sensio Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

  2. 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"

  3. 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"

  4. Purdue Pharma v. Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH

    237 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 189 times
    Holding that the accused product infringes under the court's claim construction, and the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff made a "strong showing of a reasonable likelihood that it would succeed on the merits of its infringement claim."

  5. Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc.

    148 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 163 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

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. Hoop v. Hoop

    279 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 23 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "merely refin[ing] and perfect[ing]" an invention did not make one a joint inventor

  9. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    240 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the invention “relates to the fibril length of certain material used for vascular grafts”

  10. Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp.

    220 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Permitting four new experts to testify despite the fact that none of them had offered any testimony by declaration, affidavit, or otherwise during proceedings at the PTO

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,124 times   478 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  12. 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"

  13. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 290 times   311 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  14. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 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"

  15. 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)

  16. Section 42.73 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 42.73   Cited 18 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Regarding judgments

  17. 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,