Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided November 15, 2016No. 2015-2043Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchall, Circuit Judge
I am pleased to join Parts A and C of the court’s opinion. I respectfully dissent, however, from Part B. For the reasons set forth below, I believe the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) applied the correct legal standard in finding that Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. (“PST”) failed to establish that Dr. Camran Nezhat, the inventor named on U.S. Patent No. 6,030,384 (“the ’384 patent”), exercised reasonably continuous diligence during the critical period. I also believe the Board’s finding on diligence is supported by substantial evidence.
I
A
The events leading to this appeal are not in…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- Richard C. Price v. Dale R. SymsekCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.