35 U.S.C. § 104
Repealed. Pub. L. 112–29, § 3(d), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 287]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases, 1960–2009 · leading case: Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 849 F.2d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 849 F.2d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “On the basis of the evidence before it, the district court concluded that Hybritech was likely to establish a January 1979 date of invention, that based on this court’s MAB opinion, Hybritech’s date of invention was before that of the La Jolla Cancer Research Foundation, and…”
John D. Scott & Rachel A. Steven v. Satoshi Koyama, Yukio Homoto, & Naoki Esaka, 281 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Effective January 1, 1996, applicants within the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 104 (a)(1) may support priority with evidence of work done outside of the United States.”
Application of Hans Hilmer, Gerhard Korger, Rudi Weyer & Walter Aumuller, 359 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1966). “4887, the predecessor of section 119, is annexed to the report.”
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 560 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N.D. Cal. 2008). “35 U.S.C. § 104 prevents Abbott from relying on knowledge or use of the invention outside the United States to directly prove the date of invention, but such evidence is still admissible for other purposes, such as to verify the identity of the invention or the fact of a…”
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Brenner, 248 F. Supp. 402 (D.D.C. 1965). “A similar general proviso with regard to favoring section 119 is included in 35 U.S.C. § 104 . Congress specified in section 104 that in any conflict between sections 104 and 119 with regard to proof of the date of an invention made by a foreign inventor in a foreign country,…”
Rengo Co. Ltd. & Simon Container Mach. Ltd., in No. 80-2556 v. Molins Mach. Co., Inc., in No. 80-2557, 657 F.2d 535 (3rd Cir. 1981). “Section 104, 35 U.S.C. § 104 , provides generally that an inventor cannot establish a date of invention by proving acts done in a foreign country, unless he falls within Section 119.”
Dominion Magnesium Ltd. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 240 (Ct. Cl. 1963). “In plaintiff’s view, this allegation, if borne out by the proof, would bar consideration of the French patent as an element of the prior art; the argument is that 35 U.S.C. § 104 , precluding the establishment of “a date of invention by reference to knowledge or use thereof, or…”
Abington Textile Mach. Works v. Carding Specialists (Canada) Ltd., 249 F. Supp. 823 (D.D.C. 1965). “Defendant is the owner of U. S. Patent No. 3,003,195 in suit and of all rights of recovery for infringement thereof.”
Frazer v. Schlegel, 498 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “The Board observed that since “all of Frazer’s actual reductions to practice occurred outside of the United States, Frazer must rely either on the filing dates of its Australian and PCT applications for inter alia conception and constructive reductions to practice, or on…”
Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 713 (N.D.W. Va. 2004). “” 35 U.S.C. § 104 . Because a foreign patent holder does not receive recognition for conception, however, it will lose a priority contest if another party can prove conception in the United States before the filing date, of the foreign patent.”
Hedgewick v. Akers, 497 F.2d 905 (C.C.P.A. 1974). “In considering this issue, we point out that evidence of activity, knowledge or use concerning an invention in a foreign country is not precluded by 35 U.S.C. § 104 in establishing derivation.”
Dsl Dynamic Sciences Ltd. v. Union Switch & Signal, Inc., 928 F.2d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Because the activity relating to conception and reduction to practice by Schmid was performed in Canada, DSL is prevented by 35 U.S.C. § 104 from establishing an invention date earlier than its filing date of September 9, 1983, and that is the date it has relied on throughout…”
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.