§

Antecip Bioventures II LLC

PGR2019-00028 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2020)
Antecip Bioventures II LLC

32 Cited authorities

  1. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

    572 U.S. 898 (2014)   Cited 1,407 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not indefinite if, "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [they] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"

  2. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 612 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”

  3. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 748 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party opposing summary judgment must show either that movant has not established its entitlement to judgment on the undisputed facts or that material issues of fact require resolution by trial

  4. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc.

    952 F.2d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 401 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is particularly amenable to summary judgment

  5. Amgen v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche

    580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 210 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether the differences in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct "is analogous to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103"

  6. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  7. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.

    821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 124 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding a reply brief and declaration exceeded the proper scope for a reply because they cited "a number of non-patent literature references which were not relied upon to support unpatentability in the Petition"

  8. Kyocera Wireless v. I.T.C

    545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 120 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Finding public accessibility when the reference was contained in a book sold to the public

  9. In re O'Farrell

    853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 168 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent obvious where the prior art provided a "reasonable expectation of success"

  10. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.

    815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 72 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petitioner failed to carry its burden of proving public accessibility of the allegedly invalidating reference

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,668 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 13,985 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Stating that evidence is relevant at trial if "it has any tendency to make a fact" that "is of consequence" to the "determin[ation] [of] the action" any "more or less probable"

  13. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,386 times   1048 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  14. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,012 times   1009 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  15. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,959 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  16. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 3,634 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

  17. Rule 807 - Residual Exception

    Fed. R. Evid. 807   Cited 1,628 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness" under the residual exception to the hearsay rule

  18. Section 100 - Definitions

    35 U.S.C. § 100   Cited 622 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"

  19. 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"

  20. Section 318 - Decision of the Board

    35 U.S.C. § 318   Cited 161 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Governing the incorporation of claims added via the operation of § 316(d)

  21. Section 42.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 42.8   Cited 11 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a party to "[i]dentify each real party-in-interest for the party"

  22. Section 42.200 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.200   Cited 6 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) A post-grant review is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part. (b) In a post-grant review proceeding, a claim of a patent, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend under § 42.221 , shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b) , including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in

  23. 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,