Michael S. Brown, Joseph L. Goldstein, and Yuval Reiss v. Mariano Barbacid and Veeraswamy Manne (2006)
green
· 51 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 17 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200620162026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.
green
Nfc Technology, LLC v. Matal (2017)
Cir. 2016); Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.
To establish diligence in reduction to practice, the “basic inquiry is whether ... there was reasonably continuing activity to reduce the invention to practice.” Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2006).
green
Geomatrix Systems, LLC v. Eljen Corporation (2024)
See Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.
“[D]iligence and its corroboration may be shown by a variety of activities.”
green
Robocast, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (2014)
As for diligence, “[t]he question of reasonable diligence is one of fact.” Brown v. Bar-bacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2006).
“The basic inquiry is whether, on all of the evidence, there was reasonably continuing activity to reduce the invention to practice.” Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2006).
green
Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (2014)
As for diligence, “[t]he question of reasonable diligence is one of fact.” Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2006).
“Unlike the legal rigor of conception and reduction to practice, diligence and its corroboration may be shown by a variety, of activities.” Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2006).
green
Shuffle Master, Inc. v. MP GAMES LLC (2008)
The “basic inquiry” with respect to diligence is “whether there was reasonably continuing activity to reduce the invention to practice.” Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2006).
green
Falko-Gunter Falkner, Georg Holzer, and Friedrich Dorner v. Stephen C. Inglis, Michael E.G. Boursnell, and An… (2006)
See Singh v. Brake, 222 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2000) (applying a new procedural rule if and only if it did not affect the parties’ reliance interests); see also Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376 , 1379 n. 1 (Fed.Cir.2006) (holding that the Board did not err in applying the old rules “under which this case was decided”). 6 .
green
Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis (2006)
Cir. 2000) (applying a new procedural rule if and only if it did not affect the parties’ reliance interests); see also Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376 , 1379 n.1 (Fed.
holding that the Board did not err in applying the old rules “under which this case was decided”
green
Johns Hopkins University v. 454 Life Sciences Corp. (2017)
See Brown II, 436 F.3d at 1378 . .
green
Round Rock Research, LLC v. Sandisk Corp. (2015)
See Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“Unlike the legal rigor of conception and reduction to practice, diligence and its corroboration may be shown by a variety of activities.... ”).
green
Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (2013)
See Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“Unlike the legal rigor of conception and reduction to practice, diligence and its corroboration may be shown by a variety of activities.... ”).
green
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp. (2012)
See Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“diligence and its corroboration may be shown by a variety of activities”).
green
Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor (2008)
See, e.g., Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2006) (recognizing that diligence requires corroboration, but holding that "[u]nlike the legal rigor of conception and reduction to practice, diligence and its corroboration may be shown by a variety of activities" and noting that there is "no rule requiring a specific kind of activity in determining whether the applicant was reasonably diligent in proceeding toward an actual or constructive reduction to practice").
See, e.g., Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2006) (recognizing that diligence requires corroboration, but holding that “[u]nlike the legal rigor of conception and reduction to practice, diligence and its corroboration may be shown by a variety of activities” and noting that there is “no rule requiring a specific kind of activity in determining whether the applicant was reasonably diligent in proceeding toward an actual or constructive reduction to practice”).