In Re Leithem

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the Board issued a new ground of rejection despite the fact that the Board “agreed with Leithem” that Novak did not teach a fluffed pulp
• stating that even “reliance on the same statutory basis and the same prior art references, alone, is insufficient to avoid making a new ground of rejection when the Board relies on new facts and rationales not previously raised to the applicant by the examiner”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Rambus Inc. v. Rea
  Federal Circuit· 2013-09-24· cited 72×
• Genzyme Therapeutic Products Ltd. Partnership v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2016-06-14· cited 40×
• In Re: Nuvasive, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2016-11-09· cited 33×
• Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A. De C.V.
  Federal Circuit· 2017-08-01· cited 21×
• Sirona Dental Sys. GMBH v. Institut Straumann AG, Dental Wings Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2018-06-19· cited 21×
• Knowles Electronics LLC v. Iancu
  Federal Circuit· 2018-04-06· cited 14×
• Inre: Biedermann
  Federal Circuit· 2013-10-18· cited 13×
• Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2019-08-01· cited 12×
• In Re: Doron Adler
  Federal Circuit· 2013-07-18· cited 10×
• Q.I. Press Controls, B v. v. Lee
  Federal Circuit· 2014-06-09· cited 8×
• In Re: Imes
  Federal Circuit· 2015-01-29· cited 1×
• Berkeley Lights, Inc.
  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2022-10-25

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Dickinson v. Zurko
  Supreme Court· 1999-06-10· cited 997×
• In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. Norton
  Federal Circuit· 2000-02-15· cited 665×
• In Re Sujeet Kumar
  Federal Circuit· 2005-08-15· cited 33×
• In re Kronig
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1976-07-22· cited 25×
• In Re C. Steven McDaniel Frank M. Raushel, and James R. Wild
  Federal Circuit· 2002-06-19· cited 24×
• Application of Earl Phillip Moore. Application of Harold M. Pitt and Harry Bender
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-10-07· cited 14×
• Application of Wilhelm Ahlert and Ernst Kruger
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1970-04-30· cited 10×