Falko-Gunter Falkner, Georg Holzer, and Friedrich Dorner v. Stephen C. Inglis, Michael E.G. Boursnell, and Anthony C. Minson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that information readily ac- cessible in journals need not be incorporated by reference in order to enable the patent claims at issue
• stating that constructive reduction to practice of a single embodiment requires compliance with both the enablement and written description re- quirements 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
• finding substantial evidence supported written description based on “several passages in the [paten-tee’s] application” and the unrebutted “testimony of [the patentee’s] expert,” which showed that skilled artisans would understand the invention
• \This court applies the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act ('APA') in reviewing decisions of the Board.\ (citation omitted)
• the “forced recitation of known sequences . . . would only add unnecessary bulk to the specification”
• “An agency decision can be sup- ported by substantial evidence, even where the record will support several reasonable but contradictory conclu- sions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).