Cluster 776388

green · 101 citation events across 18 courts. Showing the 24 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 24

green Nanjing 3H Medical Products Co., LTD. v. KT Health, LLC (2025)

Rule Authority · D. Maryland

Va. Bd. of Trs. v. VanVoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1297 (Fed.

green Grand Design RV LLC v. THOR Industries Inc (2022)

Rule Authority · N.D. Ind.

Va. Bd. Of Trs. v. VanVoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1304 (Fed.

green Grand Design RV LLC v. THOR Industries Inc (2022)

Rule Authority · N.D. Ind.

Va. Bd. of Trs. v. VanVoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1304 (Fed.

noting that “it was the corporation-counsel relationship that was the basis for the attorney-client privilege in In re Spalding Sports, not the inventor-counsel relationship.”

green Plastronics Socket Partners v. Hwang (2022)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Va. Bd. of Trustees v. VanVoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1296 (Fed.

green United States v. Greenlight Organic, Inc. (2017)

Rule Authority · Ct. Intl. Trade

Va. Bd. of Tr. v. VanVoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1304 (Fed.

noting court’s discretion in denying motion to compel discovery

green Millepede Marketing Limited v. Harsley (2013)

Rule Authority · D.D.C. · 3 citations in this opinion

In University of West Virginia, the defendant inventor assigned his original patent (“'970 patent”) to the university, as per the university’s patent policy and this assignment extended to all “continuation-in-part” applications relating to the same invention. 278 F.3d at 1292.

green Jersey Asparagus Farms, Inc. v. Rutgers University (2011)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff conceded at oral argument that this claim, as plead in the SAC, is defective because, as held by the Federal Circuit, “inequitable conduct before the PTO cannot qualify as an act of mail fraud or wire fraud for purposes of the predicate act requirement.” University of West Virginia Board of Trustees v. VanVoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2002) (quoting Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1380 (F…

green Carter v. ALK Holdings, Inc. (2010)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Bd. of Trustees v. VanVoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1295 (Fed.Cir. 2002) (holding that § 1338 jurisdiction exists where breach of duty to assign a patent requires resolution of whether the disputed patent application is a continuation-in-part of a prior application); U.S. Valves, Inc. v. Dray, 212 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2000) (holding that a breach of contract claim requiring resolution of whether all valves sold by licensor were covered by licensed patents provides § 1338 juri…

holding that § 1338 jurisdiction exists where breach of duty to assign a patent requires resolution of whether the disputed patent application is a continuation-in-part of a prior application

green Vernon F. Minton v. Jerry W. Gunn, Individually Williams Squire & Wren, LLP James E. Wren, Individually Sluss… (2009)

Rule Authority · Tex. App.

Va. Bd. of Trs. v. VanVoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1295 (Fed.

holding Section 1338 jurisdiction existed over state law claim alleging breach of duty to assign a patent because claim required resolution of the disputed patent application

green Vernon F. Minton v. Jerry W. Gunn, Individually Williams Squire & Wren, LLP James E. Wren, Individually Sluss… (2009)

Rule Authority · Tex. App.

Va. Bd. of Trs. v. VanVoorhies , 278 F.3d 1288, 1295 (Fed.

holding Section 1338 jurisdiction existed over state law claim alleging breach of duty to assign a patent because claim required resolution of the disputed patent application

green Kara Technology Inc. v. stamps.com Inc. (2009)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Id., 278 F.3d at 1296.

green Showmaker v. Advanta USA (2005)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Va. v. Van Voorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1295 (Fed.

green Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Bedford Reinforced Plastics, Inc. (2005)

Rule Authority · W.D. Pa.

In this manner, a single original application may spawn any number of related, 'continuation' patents.” See e.g., University of West Virginia Board of Trustees v. VanVoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1297 (Fed.Cir.2002) ("Because the ’970 assignment expressly required VanVoorhies to assign all [continuation-in-part applications of the '970 application to WVU, we affirm the [district] court’s conclusion that VanVoorhies was required to assign the '340 [continuation-in-part] applicatio…

green University of West Virginia, Board of Trustees v. Vanvoorhies (2003)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 5 citations in this opinion

Id. at 1292.

green University of West Virginia, Board of Trustees, and West Virginia University Research Corporation, Third Part… (2003)

Rule Authority · 3rd Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Indeed, the scope of that assignment agreement is limited by its plain language: 18 The undersigned does (do) hereby sell, assign, transfer and set over unto said assignee, its successors and assigns, the entire right, title and interest in and to said invention or inventions, as described in the aforesaid application, in any form or embodiment thereof, and in and to the aforesaid application; ... also the entire right, title and interest in and to any and all patents or rei…

emphases added

green The Regents of the University of New Mexico v. Galen D. Knight, and [Pg] Terence J. Scallen (2003)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir. · 5 citations in this opinion

Va. v. Vanvoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288 , 1296, 61 USPQ2d 1449, 1453 (Fed.Cir.2002).

green Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies Ag (2003)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Va. Bd. of Trustees v. Vanvoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1296 , 61 USPQ2d 1449, 1453 (Fed.Cir. 2002); Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc., 153 F.3d 1318, 1338 , 47 USPQ2d 1769, 1783 (Fed.Cir.1998).

green Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG (2003)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.

Va. Bd. of Trustees v. Vanvoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288 , 1296, 61 USPQ2d 1449, 1453 (Fed.Cir.2002); Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc., 153 F.3d 1318, 1338 , 47 USPQ2d 1769, 1783 (Fed.Cir.1998).

green Pop Top Corp. v. Nook Digital, LLC (2024)

Cited · S.D.N.Y. · signal: see

See University of West Virginia Board of Trustees v. Vanvoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1297 (Fed.

green Richards v. Kallish (2023)

Cited · S.D.N.Y. · signal: see

See VanVoorhies, 278 F.3d at 1303–04.

green Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2005)

Cited · C.D. Cal. · signal: see

See Van Voorhies, 278 F.3d at 1299.

green Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC (2012)

Cited (see also) · D. Minnesota · signal: see, e.g.

See e.g., Van Voorhies, 278 F.3d at 1304 (prosecuting patent in name of inventor did not give rise to attorney-client relationship between institution’s lawyers and inventor).

prosecuting patent in name of inventor did not give rise to attorney-client relationship between institution’s lawyers and inventor

green Caldera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regents of the University (2012)

Cited (see also) · Cal. Ct. App. · signal: see, e.g.

See, e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 201.08 (7th ed. Rev. 1 Feb. 2000). . . . (‘A continuation-in-part is an application filed during the lifetime of an earlier nonprovisional application . . . , repeating some substantial portion or all of an earlier nonprovisional application and adding matter not disclosed in the said earlier nonprovisional application.’)” (University of West Virginia v. VanVoorhies (Fed.Cir. 2002) 278 F.3d 1288 , 1297.) The precise nature of…

green Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., HCM Division v. Truseal USA, Inc. (2005)

Cited (see also) · D.N.J. · signal: compare

Compare Univ. of West Virginia v. Vanvoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288 , 1301 (Fed.Cir.2002) (noting that assignor estoppel is an "equitable doctrine”) with Hexcel Corp. v. Advanced Textiles, Inc., 716 F.Supp. 974, 976 (W.D.Tex.. 1989) and American Fence Co. v. MRM Security Systems, Inc., 710 F.Supp. 37, 41 (D.Conn. 1989) (noting that assignor estoppel is a form of legal estoppel). 4 .