Legal Opinion
Inre: Dinsmore
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided June 10, 2014No. 2013-1637PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
Mark Dinsmore and David Caruso (“applicants”), who are the inventors named in U.S. Patent No. 7,236,568, applied to reissue the '568 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 251. During the patent’s prosecution, they had recorded a terminal disclaimer in response to rejections for obviousness-type double patenting. The terminal disclaimer declares that the '568 patent “shall be enforceable only for and during such period” as it is commonly owned with the patent that underlay the double-patenting rejections. In their reissue application, the applicants sought to modify the recorded…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Miller v. Brass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Grant v. RaymondSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- AstraZeneca UK Ltd. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- In Re ClementCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Fleming v. Escort Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
- Currax Pharmaceuticals LLC v. OptiNose ASCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2021
- Dimasi v. HhsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2022
- Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2020
- KNAUF INSULATION, LLC v. JOHNS MANVILLE CORPORATIONDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2024
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.