35 U.S.C. § 114
Models, specimens
The Director may require the applicant to furnish a model of convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his invention.
When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the Director may require the applicant to furnish specimens or ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1948–2014 · leading case: In Re Jack R. Wands, Vincent R. Zurawski, Jr., & Hubert J.P. Schoemaker, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In Re Jack R. Wands, Vincent R. Zurawski, Jr., & Hubert J.P. Schoemaker, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “10 In addition to satisfying the enablement requirement, deposit of organisms also can be used to establish the filing date of the application as the prima facie date of inven *736 tion, 11 and to satisfy the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 114 that the PTO be guaranteed access to…”
In Re Robert L. Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “The second condition, that the cell line be permanently available to the public after patent grant, in their view had not been met because Lundak had not proven that the material deposited with the ATCC was the same as the material “in his possession on March 26, 1981”.”
Joseph W. Newman v. Donald J. Quigg, Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks, 877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “Newman, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 114 , to submit working models of three embodiments of his invention, based on three drawings in the specification, to the National Bureau of Standards (“NBS”) for testing, under penalty of abandonment.”
Novo Nordisk A/S v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 96 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “See 35 U.S.C. § 114 , ¶ 4. Because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Lytzen discloses each element of claim 1 of the ’535 patent, genuine issues of material fact exist as to each of claim l’s dependent claims.”
In re Breslow, 616 F.2d 516 (C.C.P.A. 1980). “The contention is that 35 U.S.C. § 114 , which authorizes the Commissioner, if he so desires, to require models, specimens, and ingredients, compels that conclusion.”
Feldman v. Aunstrup, 517 F.2d 1351 (C.C.P.A. 1975). “Under the authority of 35 U.S.C. § 114 , 4 the PTO may require an applicant to furnish specimens for the purpose of inspection or experiment.”
Kirk v. Palmer, 19 F. Supp. 3d 707 (S.D. Tex. 2014). “§§ 271 (a), 282, or a trademark infringement suit, see 35 U.S.C. § 114 . And the facts as alleged are not the kind that would typically lead to such a dispute.”
Am. Cutting Alloys, Inc. v. Carboloy Co., 80 F. Supp. 467 (E.D. Mich. 1948). “True, Section 15 of that Act, 35 U.S. C.A. § 114, does specifically state that nothing contained in the Act “shall be effective to nullify any judicial finding upon the validity of any patent for an invention, discovery, or a design made before August 8, 1946, by a court of…”
Newman v. Quigg, 681 F. Supp. 16 (D.D.C. 1988). “On November 30, 1984, the second examiner preliminarily rejected the application on the same ground as his predecessor, but ordered Newman to submit working models of his "embodiments” of his device to the National Bureau of Standards ("NBS”) for testing by May 30, 1985,…”
Upton v. Ladd, 227 F. Supp. 261 (D.D.C. 1964). “Plaintiffs were repeatedly required by the Patent Office pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 114 , and Rule 92 of the Rules of Practice of the United States Patent Office in Patent Cases to show their apparatus to the Examiner, and operate it in his presence to demonstrate the usefulness of…”
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.