Federal Circuit· 9/1/1998
Peter B. Cooper v. David Goldfarb
Citations
- 154 F.3d 1321
- 47 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1896
- 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 21410
- 1998 WL 550259
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that “reduction to practice” can be either “constructive,” by filing a patent application, or “actual,” by building the invention and showing it works for its in- tended purpose
- “When testing is necessary, the embodiment relied upon as evidence of priority must actually work for its intended purpose.”
- “In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, an inventor’s testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence.”
- “[c]orroboration may be established by ‘sufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature’”
- “In order to corroborate a reduction to practice, it is not necessary to produce an actual over-the-shoulder ob- server. Rather, sufficient circumstantial evidence of an in- dependent nature can satisfy the corroboration requirement.”
- “In order to corroborate a reduction to practice, it is not necessary to produce an actual over-the-shoulder ob- server. Rather, sufficient circumstantial evidence of an in- dependent nature can satisfy the corroboration requirement.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Clevenger, Skelton, Schall
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
89 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Invitrogen Corp. (Formerly Known as Life Technologies, Inc.) v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2005-11-18· cited 158×
- Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLCFederal Circuit· 2013-11-15· cited 140×
- Sandt Technology, Ltd. v. Resco Metal and Plastics Corporation (Also Known as Resco Metal Products Corp.) and Seven Ocean Enterprises, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2001-10-15· cited 129×
- Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.Federal Circuit· 2006-02-03· cited 125×
- In Re Scott T. JolleyFederal Circuit· 2002-10-29· cited 122×
- Z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.Federal Circuit· 2007-11-16· cited 84×
- TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Co.Federal Circuit· 2016-02-10· cited 72×
- Slip Track Systems, Inc. And Todd A. Brady v. Metal-Lite, Inc., Thomas R. Herren, and Gene N. Carpenter, Defendants-CrossFederal Circuit· 2002-09-11· cited 55×
- C&f Packing Co., Inc. v. Ibp, Inc., and Pizza Hut, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2000-08-25· cited 54×
- Shu-Hui Chen and Vittorio Farina v. Herve Bouchard, Jean-Dominique Bourzat, and Alain CommerconFederal Circuit· 2003-10-22· cited 44×
- Arjun Singh v. Anthony J. BrakeFederal Circuit· 2003-01-29· cited 43×
- E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLCFederal Circuit· 2019-04-17· cited 40×
- Yorkey v. DiabFederal Circuit· 2010-04-07· cited 38×
- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LPFederal Circuit· 2011-12-01· cited 38×
- Darrel A. Mazzari, and Michael T. Sheedy v. James E. Rogan, Director, Patent and Trademark OfficeFederal Circuit· 2003-03-17· cited 36×
- Fleming v. Escort Inc.Federal Circuit· 2014-12-24· cited 36×
- Thomson, S.A. v. Quixote Corporation and Disc Manufacturing, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1999-01-25· cited 34×
- Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2012-02-10· cited 29×
- Michael S. Brown, Joseph L. Goldstein, and Yuval Reiss v. Mariano Barbacid and Veeraswamy ManneFederal Circuit· 2002-01-11· cited 29×
- In Re Omeprazole Patent LitigationFederal Circuit· 2008-08-20· cited 27×
Cites
22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Hybritech Incorporated v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1986-09-19· cited 449×
- Richard C. Price v. Dale R. SymsekFederal Circuit· 1993-03-11· cited 284×
- Ethicon, Inc. And Inbae Yoon, M.D. v. United States Surgical Corporation and Young Jae ChoiFederal Circuit· 1998-04-01· cited 277×
- Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., and Novopharm, Inc. And Novopharm, Ltd.Federal Circuit· 1994-12-15· cited 241×
- Dr. Sakharam D. Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Davol Inc. And Bard Access Systems, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1996-05-03· cited 188×
- Umc Electronics Company v. The United States, Cross-AppellantFederal Circuit· 1987-04-15· cited 140×
- John H. Coleman v. Martin B. DinesFederal Circuit· 1985-02-08· cited 98×
- Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'oreal, S.A.Federal Circuit· 1997-11-03· cited 60×
- F. Brantley Scott and John H. Burton v. Roy P. FinneyFederal Circuit· 1994-09-14· cited 55×
- Knorr v. PearsonCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1982-02-25· cited 46×
- Hahn v. WongFederal Circuit· 1989-12-28· cited 41×
- Reese v. HurstCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1981-10-15· cited 34×
- Myers v. FeigelmanCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1972-02-24· cited 28×
- Silvestri v. GrantCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1974-05-09· cited 26×
- Holmwood v. SugavanamFederal Circuit· 1991-11-05· cited 25×
- Berges v. GottsteinCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1980-04-10· cited 21×
- James L. Gianladis v. Gus S. KassCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1963-11-14· cited 19×
- Correge v. MurphyFederal Circuit· 1983-04-20· cited 17×
- Collins v. OlsenCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1939-03-06· cited 15×
- James U. Mann v. Byron H. Werner and Robert J. ReidCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1965-07-01· cited 9×
Other cases named Peter B. Cooper v. David Goldfarb
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
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.