Federal Circuit· 10/5/2011
In Re Stepan Co.
Citations
- 660 F.3d 1341
- 100 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1489
- 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20178
- 2011 WL 4582488
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Whether the Board relied on a new ground of rejection is a legal question that we review de novo.” (citations omitted)
- “[I]f the appellant has not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Board’s actual basis of rejection, the administrative validity proceedings before the [PTO] should be allowed to continue.”
- “[T]he mere fortuity that Stepan addressed the validity of the Declaration on its own, without the issue being raised by the examiner, does not permit the Board to reject the Declaration as ineffective without designating its decision as a new ground of rejection.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Dyk, Friedman, Prost
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Rambus Inc. v. ReaFederal 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×
- Knowles Electronics LLC v. IancuFederal Circuit· 2018-04-06· cited 14×
- Inre: BiedermannFederal Circuit· 2013-10-18· cited 13×
- Q.I. Press Controls, B v. v. LeeFederal Circuit· 2014-06-09· cited 8×
- Berkeley Lights, Inc.Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2022-10-25
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.