Legal Opinion
Capon v. Eshhar v. Dudas
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided August 12, 2005No. 2003-1480PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Both of the parties to a patent interference proceeding have appealed the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, wherein the Board held that the specification of neither party met the written description requirement of the patent statute. Capon v. Eshhar, Interf. No. 103,887 (Bd. Pat.App. & Interf. Mar. 26, 2003). The Board dissolved the interference and cancelled all of the claims of both parties corresponding to the interference count. With this ruling, the Board terminated the proceeding and…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Dickinson v. ZurkoSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Dickinson v. ZurkoSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- 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
- The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Anthony Dzuricky v. Melissa Bradley, John/Jane Doe, Supervisor ECAPPDDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2025
- Daniel J. Capon, Arthur Weiss, Brian A. Irving, Margo R. Roberts, and Krisztina Zsebo v. Zelig Eshhar, Daniel Schindler, Tova Waks, and Gideon Gross v. Jon Dudas, Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005