How cited: Cluster 471885 · Go Syfert

Cluster 471885

green · 541 citation events across 48 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Quote Authority · Fed. Cir.
Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
“It is hornbook law that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary.”
Quote Authority · Fed. Cir.
See also Power Integrations, 843 F.3d at 1335 (“Indeed, we have affirmed induced infringement verdicts based on circumstantial evidence of inducement (e.g., advertisements, user manuals) directed to a class of direct infringers (e. g., customers, end users) without requiring hard proof that any individual third-party direct infringer was actually persuaded to infringe by that material.”); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
“Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence”
Quote Authority · N.D. Cal.
Likewise, in Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., the court found that third parties’ direct infringement was proven by circumstantial evidence, but the plaintiffs claims against the defendant, CBS, was for indirect infringement, i.e., inducing infringement by the third parties, its customers. 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir. 1986) (“Method claims 3-5 can be infringed only by a puzzle user.
“Method claims 3-5 can be infringed only by a puzzle user. Thus, Moleeulon’s claim is one for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b).”
Quote Authority · Fed. Cir. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
To the extent that the appellants’ argument as to Larry Ludy is based on the lack of an explicit confidentiality agreement between the cousins, “[w]e have never required a formal confidentiality agreement to show non-public use.” Dey, 715 F.3d at 1357 ; see also Moleculon, 793 F.2d at 1266 (“[T]he presence or absence of [an express confidentiality] agreement is not determinative of the public use issue.”).
“[T]he presence or absence of [an express confidentiality] agreement is not determinative of the public use issue.”
Quote Authority · D.S.D.
Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 , 1272 n.8 (Fed.
“ ‘Comprising’ is not used here as a transitional phrase and has no special legal effect as such. Hence, it should not be interpreted according to the normal rules of claim interpretation.”
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
“It is hornbook law that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary. ‘Circumstan- tial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.’” (quoting Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325, 330 (1960))
Rule Authority · E.D. Mich. · 2 citations in this opinion
Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1267 (Fed.
stating that “an assignment or sale of the rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of ‘the invention’ within the meaning of section 102(b).” (emphasis added)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
causation evidence included “dissemination of an in- struction sheet teaching” the infringing method
green Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (2021)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 856 (1991) (cit- ing Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1268 (Fed.
Rule Authority · W.D. Wash. · 2 citations in this opinion
Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1270 (Fed.
“We have never required a party to proffer expert testimony . . . on application of 11 claim language to accused devices.” (emphasis in original)
green Cones v. Wilkie (2020)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 2004) (citing Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1266 (Fed.
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Cir. 1998) acknowledges that “a transitional term such as ‘comprising’. . . does not exclude additional unrecited elements, or steps (in the case of a method claim).” Jd. 1379-80 (quoting Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed.
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Cir. 1998) acknowledges that “a transitional term such as ‘comprising’. . . does not exclude additional unrecited elements, or steps (in the case of a method claim).” Jd. 1379-80 (quoting Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed.
Rule Authority · E.D. Tex.
Cir. 2006) (“instruction sheets” provided by the defendant); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
same
Rule Authority · D.N.M.
Cir. 1997); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed.
noting that “comprising” opens a method claim to the inclusion of additional steps, but does not affect the scope of the structure recited within the steps
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y. · 2 citations in this opinion
Cir. 2008) (citing to Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1265 (Fed.
Rule Authority · D. Mass.
A patentee may prove . . . intent through circumstantial evidence . . . .” (quoting Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
Rule Authority
Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
upholding a trial court’s finding of fact after a bench trial law that patentee had met its burden of showing § 271(b) infringement with circumstantial evidence of extensive product sales and distributed instructions teaching the method
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
It is hornbook law that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary.” Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
Rule Authority · W.D. Tex.
Cir. 1999); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed.
Rule Authority · D. Del.
“Direct infringement can be proven by circumstantial evidence.” Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2009) (citing Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986)).
Rule Authority · D. Del.
Defendants argue that Dr. Weiner's testimony should be rejected because he did not personally test the relevant excipients, but Dr. Weiner is not obligated to perform such tests where the law provides that "[d]irect infringement can be proven by circumstantial evidence.” Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986). .
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Feb. 3, 2014) (“[A] finding of infringement can rest on as little as one instance of the claimed method being performed during the pertinent time period.”) (quoting Lucent, 580 F.3d at 1317 ); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986) (“[i]t is hornbook law that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary” to meet a party’s burden of proof on an issue of fact).
Rule Authority · W.D.N.C. · 2 citations in this opinion
Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986).
Rule Authority · D. Mass.
The term “comprising” as used in patent law is an open-ended transitional term, and as utilized in the '493 patent, appears intended to accommodate additional unspecified components of the claimed “pharmaceutical composition.” See Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed.Cir.1986) (the term “comprising” means “all of the preceding and more”).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 811 (Fed.Cir.1999) (citing Stiftung v. Renishaw PLC, 945 F.2d 1173, 1178 (Fed.Cir.1991); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed.Cir.1986)).
Rule Authority · D. Del.
There is no requirement that direct evidence be introduced.” Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1219 (Fed.Cir.2006) (citing Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986) (abrogated on other grounds)).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
On the other hand, in Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1265-67 (Fed.Cir.1986), we upheld a patent even though the inventor had showed prototypes of the invention, a three-dimensional puzzle, to several friends and his employer over the course of five years. 793 F.2d at 1263 .
Rule Authority · D. Del.
There is no requirement that direct evidence be introduced.” Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1219 (Fed.Cir.2006) (citing Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986) (abrogated on other grounds)).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Cir. 2006) (citing Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
Rule Authority · 2 citations in this opinion
Int'l Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1293 (Fed.Cir.2008) (citing Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986)).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Cir.2009); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
“Direct infringement can be proven by circumstantial evidence.” Vita-Mix, 581 F.3d at 1326 (citing Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986)); see also Alco Standard Corp. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 808 F.2d 1490 , 1503 (Fed.Cir.1986) (“Although the evidence of infringement is circumstantial, that does not make it any less credible or persuasive.”).
Rule Authority · N.D. Ind. · 2 citations in this opinion
Similarly, an inventor can’t avoid infringement where the method “employs additional steps.” Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed.Cir.1986).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
Rule Authority · D. Del. · 3 citations in this opinion
See, gen., Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v. Dillon Co., Inc., 205 F.3d 1377, 1382-83 (Fed.Cir.2000) (rejecting patentee’s efforts to expand a claimed range of 0-1% cerium oxide to encompass 1.61% cerium oxide in accused product by arguing that 1.61% was composed of two sub-percentages of cerium oxide accomplishing different functions); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed.Cir.1986) (finding that using “comprising” to expand claim to a 2 x 2 x 2 puzzle to c…
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e.g., Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1181 (Fed.Cir.1995); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir. 1986).
Rule Authority · D. Del. · 2 citations in this opinion
While it is true that circumstantial evidence may be used to demonstrate direct infringement, Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986), the evidence must still indicate that infringement actually occurred.
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
In the public use context of § 102(b), we have similarly noted that a lack of an express promise of confidentiality is not determinative of public use, but is instead “one factor to be considered in assessing all the evidence.” Bernhardt, L.L.C. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 386 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quoting Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1266 (Fed.Cir.1986)), abrogated on other grounds by Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665…
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Blue Sky also argues that the product manuals and other circumstantial evidence, without more, are insufficient to prove infringement as a matter of law under Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1219 (Fed.Cir.2006) (citing Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986)).
Rule Authority · D. Mass. · 2 citations in this opinion
Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1266 (Fed.Cir.1986) (holding that the inventor of Rubik’s Cube did not publicly use his invention because he controlled the use at all times).
green Markem v. Zipher, Ltd. (2008)
Rule Authority · D.N.H.
CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1270 (Fed.
Rule Authority · W.D. Wis.
Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed.Cir.1986).
Rule Authority · W.D. Wis.
Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. v. Laboratory Corp. of *1004 America Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2004); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986).
Rule Authority · S.D. Cal.
Peterson Co., 438 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed.Cir.2006) (concluding that patentee could rely on circumstantial evidence, including instruction sheets provided with product, to prove direct infringement); Arthrocare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 406 F.3d 1365, 1375-77 (Fed.Cir.2005) (affirming denial of judgment as a matter of law of no indirect infringement based, in part, on “strong circumstantial evidence” of direct infringement, including literature accompanying the product inv…
Rule Authority · W.D.N.Y. · 2 citations in this opinion
Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986), ce rt. denied, 479 U.S. 1030 , 107 S.Ct. 875 , 93 L.Ed.2d 829 (1987), rev’d on other grounds, 872 F.2d 407 (Fed.Cir.1989).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Cir. 1998) (finding that Cardinal's advertisements conceded the ability of the accused device to practice the claimed method, and encouraged such use); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.
rejecting the argument that “proof of inducing infringement or direct infringement requires direct, as opposed to circumstantial evidence”