§

Catapult Innovations Pty Ltd. v. adidas AG

13077510 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2014)
Catapult Innovations Pty Ltd. v. adidas AG

17 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. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

    40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 289 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reduction to practice by a third party inures to the benefit of the inventor even without communication of the conception

  3. Cooper v. Goldfarb

    154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 152 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor's date of reduction to practice requires independent corroboration

  4. Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis

    448 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 87 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where “accessible literature sources clearly provided” a description of the teachings at issue, the written description requirement does not require their incorporation by reference

  5. Sewall v. Walters

    21 F.3d 411 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 87 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventorship is a question of law

  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. Singh v. Brake

    222 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the "concern that a party claiming inventorship might be tempted to describe his actions in an unjustifiably self-serving manner in order to obtain a patent or to maintain an existing patent"

  8. Kridl v. Mccormick

    105 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 46 times
    Stating that corroboration is "independent confirmation of the inventor’s testimony"

  9. In re Zurko

    258 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 27 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Board's affirmance of an examiner's obviousness rejection where the Board failed to identify "concrete evidence in the record" supporting its findings

  10. Davis v. Reddy

    620 F.2d 885 (C.C.P.A. 1980)   Cited 22 times

    Appeal No. 80-506. May 15, 1980. Rehearing Denied July 10, 1980. James B. Blanchard, Chicago, Ill., attorney of record for appellants; Maurice J. Jones, Jr., Phoenix, Ariz., of counsel. Charles W. Bradley, New York City, attorney of record for appellee; Paul J. Ethington, Reising, Ethington, Barnard, Perry Brooks, Southfield, Mich., Russel C. Wells, The Bendix Corp., Southfield, Mich., of counsel. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Interferences. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge

  11. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  12. Section 122 - Confidential status of applications; publication of patent applications

    35 U.S.C. § 122   Cited 175 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Providing that with certain exceptions, "each application for a patent shall be published, in accordance with procedures determined by the Director, promptly after the expiration of a period of 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under this title."

  13. Section 42.1 - Policy

    37 C.F.R. § 42.1   Cited 21 times   29 Legal Analyses

    (a)Scope. Part 42 governs proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Sections 1.4 , 1.7 , 1.14 , 1.16 , 1.22 , 1.23 , 1.25 , 1.26 , 1.32 , 1.34 , and 1.36 of this chapter also apply to proceedings before the Board, as do other sections of part 1 of this chapter that are incorporated by reference into this part. (b)Construction. This part shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. (c)Decorum. Every party must act with courtesy and decorum

  14. Section 42.401 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.401   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    In addition to the definitions in § 42.2 , the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart: Agreement or understanding under 35 U.S.C. 135(e) means settlement for the purposes of § 42.74 . Applicant includes a reissue applicant. Application includes both an application for an original patent and an application for a reissued patent. First publication means either a patent or an application publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) , including a publication of an international application

  15. Section 42.405 - Content of petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.405   7 Legal Analyses

    (a)Grounds for standing. The petition must: (1) Demonstrate compliance with §§ 42.402 and 42.403 ; and (2) Show that the petitioner has at least one claim that is: (i) The same or substantially the same as the respondent's claimed invention; and (ii) The same or substantially the same as the invention disclosed to the respondent. (b) In addition to the requirements of §§ 42.8 and 42.22 , the petition must: (1) Provide sufficient information to identify the application or patent for which the petitioner