Rasmusson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Rasmusson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2006 · 2 courts · …prior art reference need not demonstrate utility in order to serve as an anticipating reference under section 102. at p. 1326 ⚠ not in text
92 citation events (90 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: On-LINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp. (ctd, 2006-09-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) On-LINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp.
D. Conn. · 2006 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
prior art reference need not demonstrate utility in order to serve as an anticipating reference under section 102.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Mangosoft v. Oracle
D.N.H. · 2006 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
prior art reference need not demonstrate utility in order to serve as an anticipating reference under section 102.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.
D.N.H. · 2006 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
prior art reference need not demonstrate utility in order to serve as an anticipating reference under section 102.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baxalta Incorporated v. Bayer HealthCare LLC (2×)
D. Del. · 2021 · confidence medium
Rasmusson, 413 F.3d at 1323.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Lilly
E.D. Tex. · 2017 · confidence medium
The ap-pellee argued that the prior art reference did not anticipate because it presented data showing that the method did not have anti-tumor effects, while the patent contained data showing the opposite. 413 F.3d at 1326.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Petito v. Puritan's Pride, Inc. (8×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 2014 · confidence medium
In Rasmusson, the Federal Circuit upheld the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ determination that a patent for the use of finasteride to treat prostate cancer was invalid for lack of utility. 413 F.3d at 1322.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Eli Lilly and Co. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.N.J. · 2010 · confidence medium
There, the Court was faced with determining a priority date between two patent applications “relatefd] to a method of treating a type of prostate cancer by administering a chemical compound called finasteride.” Rasmusson, 413 F.3d at 1320.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Gleave
Fed. Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Impax Labs., 545 F.3d at 1315; Rasmusson, 413 F.3d at 1326.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re '318 Patent Infringement Litigation
D. Del. · 2008 · confidence medium
When one of the guesses later proved true, the “inventor” would be rewarded the spoils instead of the party who demonstrated that the method actually worked. 413 F.3d at 1325.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re '318 Patent Infringement Litigation
D. Del. · 2008 · confidence medium
When one of the guesses later proved true, the “inventor” would be rewarded the spoils instead of the party who demonstrated that the method actually worked. 413 F.3d at 1325.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.
D. Del. · 2007 · confidence medium
Id. at 1384.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (10×) also: Cited "see"
Fed. Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
In Rasmusson, we held that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("Board") erred in determining that a prior art reference was not enabling and thus not anticipatory. 413 F.3d at 1325-26.
discussed Cited "see" Tas v. Beachy
Fed. Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
To satisfy the enablement requirement, the specification must describe the manner of making and using the invention “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art ... to make and use the same....” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1; see Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318 , 1322 (Fed.Cir.2005).
discussed Cited "see" Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust
S.D.N.Y. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Rather, anticipation only requires that those suggestions be enabling to one of skill in the art.” Bristol-Myers Squibb, 246 F.3d at 1379 (Fed.Cir.2001); see Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318 , 1326 (Fed.Cir.2005) (agreeing with litigant that Bristol-Myers Squibb “stands for the broader proposition that proof of efficacy is not required in order for a reference to be enabled for purposes of anticipation” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ). 299.
cited Cited "see" In Re '318 Patent Infringement Litigation
Fed. Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318 , 1325 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318 , 1325 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“If mere plausibility were the test for enablement under section 112, applicants could obtain patent rights to ‘inventions’ consisting of little more than respectable guesses as to the likelihood of their success.
cited Cited "see" Eli Lilly and Co. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA
S.D. Ind. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rasmusson, 413 F.3d at 1323; Brana, 51 F.3d at 1566 .
cited Cited "see" Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
S.D. Ind. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rasmusson, 413 F.3d at 1323 (Fed.Cir.2005); In re Brana, 51 F.3d at 1566 .
discussed Cited "see" Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
D. Del. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318 (Fed.Cir.2005). 21 The Board did not provide a comparable signal in either the '240 or '361 interferences. 22 In both cases, the Board appeared willing to move forward on priority, an issue within its “experience and expertise,” see Cerro, 620 F.2d at 970-71 , and did not note any potential futility in doing *523 so.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc.
D. Del. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Rasmusson et al. v. Smithkline *475 Beecham Corporation, Interference No. 104,-646, Paper 139 (October 8, 2003) (D.I.20, ex. 1) (the Board’s decision, ultimately reviewed by the Federal Circuit, Rasmusson v. Smith-Kline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318 (Fed.Cir.2005), was based on a party’s request for entry of an adverse judgment).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bio-Technology General Corp.
Fed. Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The ’196 patent suffices as an anticipatory prior art reference if it discloses in an enabling manner the production of PHC hemihydrate.”); see also Rasmusson, 413 F.3d at 1326; Bristol-Myers Squibb, 246 F.3d at 1379; In re Donohue, 766 F.2d at 533 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rasmusson
v.
Smithkline Beecham Corporation
2004-1191.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Jul 7, 2005.
413 F.3d 1318
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ERRATA

July 7, 2005

Appeal No. 04-1191 and 04-1192

Rasmusson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

Decided: June 27, 2005 Precedential Opinion

Change the opinion as follows:

• On page 7, line 17, replace “628 F.2d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1980)” with “628 F.2d 1322, 1332 (CCPA 1980)”