Bamberg v. Dalvey
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
Ulf Bamberg, Peter Kummer, and Ilona Stiburek appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s consolidated interference proceeding decision refusing to allow the claims of four patent applications because the specification failed to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Because the Board properly construed the claims and substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Bamberg failed to meet the written description requirement, and because it was not an abuse of discretion to deny Bam-berg’s motion to amend, we affirm.
I
This case arises…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Dr. Raymond G. Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Microsoft Corporation v. Proxyconn, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Dionex Softron Gmbh v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2023
- Aqua Products, Inc. v. MatalCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Aqua Products, Inc. v. MatalCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Johns Hopkins University v. 454 Life Sciences Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 2017