Legal Opinion

Martin Gardner Reiffin v. Microsoft Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided June 30, 2000No. 98-1502PublishedCited by 56 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION PER CURIAM, JUDGE PAULINE NEWMAN CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT WITH OPINION.

2Per curiam

Martin Gardner Reiffin appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,1 granting summary judgment that United States Patents Nos. 5,694,603 and 5,694,604 are *1344invalid for failure to meet the “written description” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We conclude that the district court erred in application of the statute. The summary judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

DISCUSSION

In 1982 Mr. Reiffin filed a patent…

3Cases cited8 opinions

Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
Continental Can Company Usa, Inc. And Continental Pet Technologies, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, Hoover Universal, Inc. And Johnson Controls, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
The Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. The Berkline Corporation, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
In Re Jacques Gosteli, Ivan Ernest and Robert B. WoodwardCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
Gilbert P. Hyatt v. Gary W. BooneCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by56 opinions

Liebel-Flarsheim Company and Mallinckrodt Inc. v. Medrad, Inc., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
Amgen Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (Now Known as Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
Katz v. American Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004

51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.