25 U.S.C. § 102
Payment of costs for furnishing coal for Indian Service
The cost of inspection, storage, transportation, and so forth, of coal for the Indian Service shall be paid from the support fund of the school or agency for which the coal is purchased.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 643 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2009).
Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 643 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2009). “The patent examiner rejected this claim under 25 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as anticipated by prior art.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 134 F. Supp. 3d 877 (W.D. Pa. 2015). “, 25 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Defendant has not argued that the [patents] are invalid as anticipated by or obvious over prior art, nor have they argued that the claims at issue lack an adequate written description or are not enabled.”
Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Canon Inc., 104 F. Supp. 3d 629 (D. Del. 2015). “Even if the prior art discloses each and every limitation set forth in a claim, such disclosure will not suffice under 25 U.S.C. § 102 if it is not enabling. In re Borst, 345 F.”
Mobilemedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 439 (D. Del. 2013). “Even if the prior art discloses each and every limitation set forth in a claim, such disclosure will not suffice under 25 U.S.C. § 102 if it is not enabling. In re Borst, 345 F.”
Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 351 (D. Conn. 2007). “Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Claims 1 and 7 of the 407 Patent Under 25 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a) and 102(b) [Doc. # 119] is GRANTED and defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Pursuant to 35 U.”
Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, 72 F. Supp. 3d 496 (D. Del. 2014). “Even if the prior art discloses each and every limitation set forth in a claim, such disclosure will not suffice under 25 U.S.C. § 102 if it is not enabling. In re Borst, 345 F.”
Torin Corp. v. Philips Indus., Inc., 625 F. Supp. 1077 (S.D. Ohio 1985). “25 U.S.C. § 102 . (4) The patent in suit is invalid because at the time it was made, it was obvious to one skilled in the art.”
APPLIED MATERIAL v. Tokyo Seimitsu, Co., Ltd., 446 F. Supp. 2d 538 (E.D. Va. 2006). “Defendants argue that the ’454 Patent is invalid with respect to Claims 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, and 27 as fully anticipated under 25 U.S.C. § 102 (e) by prior art disclosed or under 25 U.”
LATENTIER, LLC v. Int'l Paper Co., 725 F. Supp. 2d 795 (E.D. Wis. 2010). “” 25 U.S.C. § 102 (b). The examiner concluded that Hoffman’s 1980 article had disclosed the business method to include: controlling the operating speed of a continuous process manufacturing facility (Incremental efficiency concept deals with the efficiency associated with…”
Swarm Tech. LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. (D. Ariz. 2021). “Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1367. 2 Swarm argues the Patents’ prosecution demonstrates the Patents entail an inventive 3 concept.”
Kolcraft Enter., Inc. v. Chicco USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2018). “25 U.S.C. §§ 102 (f), 116. See Pannu v. Iolab Corp.”
Kolcraft Enter., Inc. v. Chicco USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2018). “25 U.S.C. §§ 102 (f), 116. See Pannu v. Iolab Corp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.