Reference health
Recent Developments in Patent Law 2019
94/94 checkable references clean · checked 2026-08-28
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
308 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 94 checked references that resolve
resolves10.1089/blr.2012.9995
Amicus Brief of Myriad Genetics, Inc. in McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Sys. Corp. (Fed. Cir. No. 2010-1291)
resolves10.1089/blr.2017.29035.ath
Athena Diagonistics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLCMassachusetts District Court, 2017No. 15-CV-40075-IT, 2017 WL 3336275
resolves10.1089/blr.2009.9911
<i>Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services and Mayo Clinic Rochester</i>
resolves10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1254
Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to beta glucans and maintenance of normal blood cholesterol concentrations (ID 754, 755, 757, 801, 1465, 2934) and maintenance or achievement of a normal body weight (ID 820, 823) pursuant
resolves10.1089/blr.2018.29096.cmh
Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. v. Cepheid United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, 2018 905 F.3d 1363
resolves10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1484
Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to honey and “respiratory health through presence of antioxidant phytochemicals” (ID 1161), “the unique composition and ratio of effective substances adds energy to the human body” (ID 3188), and “it stimulates the whole metabolism and the immune system” (ID 3189) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006
resolves10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1750
Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to pomegranate/pomegranate juice and maintenance of normal blood cholesterol concentrations (ID 1162, 1320, 2107, 2167), maintenance of normal erectile function (ID 1163), protection of lip
resolves10.1089/blr.2018.29079.cmh
Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prod. IP Ltd.United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, 2018890 F.3d 1024
resolves10.2139/ssrn.3095819
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc., Brief Amicus Curiae of Copyright Law Professor Pamela Samuelson
resolves10.1089/glr2.2019.2329
GC2 INC. V. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY; IGT; AND DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC Case No. 16 C 8784, 2018 WL 5921315 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2018)
resolves10.2307/1339959
Copyrights. Radio and Television. Cable Television Operator Subject to Liability for Copyright Infringement When Distant Signals Are Imported. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Teleprompter Corp., 476 F. 2d 338 (2d Cir.), Cert. Granted, 94 S. Ct. 52 (1973) (Nos. 72-1628 & 72-1633)
resolves10.1136/bmj.s1-12.15.403
Susrutas. Ayurvedas. Id est Medicinae Systema a venerabili D'Hanvantare demonstratum a Susruta Discipulo compositum
resolves10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1727
Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to selenium and maintenance of normal hair (ID 281), maintenance of normal nails (ID 281), protection against heavy metals (ID 383), maintenance of normal joints (ID 409), maintenance of no
resolves10.1525/fsr.2018.30.4-5.294
<i>Jane Doe v. United States</i>, 110 F.Supp.3d 448 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), ordered vacated, 833 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Doe I”)
resolves10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1215
Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to iron and formation of red blood cells and haemoglobin (ID 249, ID 1589), oxygen transport (ID 250, ID 254, ID 256), energy-yielding metabolism (ID 251, ID 1589), function of the immune s
resolves10.1006/rwgn.2001.1383
resolves10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2264
Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to soy isoflavones and protection of DNA, proteins and lipids from oxidative damage (ID 1286, 4245), maintenance of normal blood LDL cholesterol concentrations (ID 1135, 1704a, 3093a), reduction of vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause (ID 1654, 1704b, 2140, 3093b, 3154, 3590), maintenance of normal skin tonicity (ID 1704a), contribution to normal hair growth (ID 1704a, 4254), “cardiovascular health” (ID 3587), treatment of prostate cancer (ID 3588) and “upper respiratory tract” (ID 3589) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006
resolves10.1089/blr.2012.9998
Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics Inc., No. 2010-1264 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2011)
resolves10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2033
Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to polyphenols in olive and protection of LDL particles from oxidative damage (ID 1333, 1638, 1639, 1696, 2865), maintenance of normal blood HDL cholesterol concentrations (ID 1639), maintenance of normal blood pressure (ID 3781), “anti‐inflammatory properties” (ID 1882), “contributes to the upper respiratory tract health” (ID 3468), “can help to maintain a normal function of gastrointestinal tract” (3779), and “contributes to body defences against external agents” (ID 3467) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006
resolves10.4000/cybergeo.23973
resolves10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_305
Attica. IG III 1280a (Add. p. 519 = Syll³. 1111) corr. id. l. c. 63
resolves10.26616/nioshheta831961492
Health hazard evaluation report: HETA-83-196-1492, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Gadsden, Alabama.
resolves10.13109/9783666250118.32
Einzelinterpretation von Apollonios, Arg. 1,1172–1279 (im Vergleich mit Theokrit, id. 13)
resolves10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_299
Attica. IG III 1181 vs. 13 sqq. novo tragmento auxit id. l.c. 65 sqq.
resolves10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_300
Attica. IG III 1192a corr. id. l. c. 66 sq., n. 98 cum tab. LXXVII.
resolves10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a3_303
Attica. IG III 1202 corr. id. l.c. 70 sqq., n. 104 cum tab. LXXXII.
resolves10.2307/1342701
Constitutional Law. Regulatory Takings. Federal Circuit's Holding Introduces Subjective Factors into Takings Clause "Denominator" Analysis. Palm Beach Isles Associates v. United States, 208 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.), aff'd on reh'g, 231 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
resolves10.1089/glre.2008.13107
Fortunet, Inc. v. Gametech Arizona Corp.,
<i>No. 2:06-CV-00393-PMP-PAL, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96565 (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2008)</i>
resolves10.1089/clinomi.05.01.08
BERG, Mass General, Brigham and Women's Collaborate to ID Alzheimer's Biomarkers
resolves10.1787/118504387323
Countries’ share in core and citing papers 1999 - 2004 & Ratio of international co-authorship in citing articles 1999 - 2004
resolves10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.u171264
Boxall, Bernard, (17 Aug. 1906–3 Aug. 1994), Deputy Chairman, Lancer Boss Group Ltd, 1974–93
resolves10.1089/glr.2008.12113
Emerald Casino, Inc. v. Illinois Gaming Board,
<i>No. 1-07-0881, 2007 Ill. App. LEXIS 1253 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 26, 2007)</i>
resolves10.2139/ssrn.2403530
Brief of Amici Curiae Computer Scientists in Oracle America Inc., v. Google Inc., No. 2013-1021 (Fed. Cir.)
resolves10.1089/073003101300052771
Can Unpredictable New Technology Satisfy Enablement?
<i>Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc.</i>
, 188 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
resolves10.2172/10147981
Hydrologic studies in wells open through large intervals. Annual report, 1992
resolves10.4155/ppa-2016-0020
How the New Patent Trial and Appeal Board Rules Impact the Practice of Inter Partes Reviews
resolves10.1089/blr.2015.29012.hol
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., and Natera, Inc.,
<i>Plaintiffs-Appellees</i>
, and DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc.,
<i>Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee</i>
, v. Sequenom, Inc., and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC,
<i>Defendants-Appellants</i>
, and ISIS Innovation Limited,
<i>Defendant</i>
(United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)
resolves10.9785/cri-2016-0307
USA: “Concrete and Particularized” Injury by False Data in Credit Reporting – Spokeo Inc. v. Thomas Robins – Supreme Court of the United States – decision of 16 May 2016
resolves10.1089/blr.2006.9978
Oral Arguments: MedImmune, Inc., v. Genentech, Inc., et al. (October 4, 2006)
resolves10.2139/ssrn.3248781
Brief of 15 Law Professors as Amici Curiae, Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, No. 17-1594, Supreme Court of the United States
resolves10.2139/ssrn.3359073
Brief of the R Street Institute as Amicus Curiae: Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service
resolves10.1089/glr2.2019.2347
IN RE: MARCO GULDENAAR HOLDING B.V. Case No. 2017-2465 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2018)
The 308 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedref1
no DOI — not checkedref3
no DOI — not checkedref4
no DOI — not checked2017) (dealing with tagging data for use in indexes). Id. The court also raised precedent from Core Wireless, id
no DOI — not checkedref7
no DOI — not checkedIt is not enough, however, to merely trace the invention to some real-world analogy [i.e., to tabs that 'existed outside the context of electronic spreadsheets']. The eligibility question is not whether anyone has ever used tabs to organize information. That question is reserved for � � 102 and 103
no DOI — not checkedref9
no DOI — not checkedref10
no DOI — not checkedref11
no DOI — not checkedref13
no DOI — not checkedref15
no DOI — not checkedref16
no DOI — not checkedref17
no DOI — not checkedref18
no DOI — not checkedref19
no DOI — not checkedref20
no DOI — not checkedref21
no DOI — not checkedref23
no DOI — not checkedref26
no DOI — not checkedref27
no DOI — not checkedref28
no DOI — not checkedref29
no DOI — not checkedref30
no DOI — not checkedref32
no DOI — not checkedref34
no DOI — not checkedat 1159 (citing Alice Corp. v.CLS Bank Int'l, 573
no DOI — not checkedref38
no DOI — not checkedref39
no DOI — not checkedref43
no DOI — not checkedref45
no DOI — not checkedref46
no DOI — not checkedref48
no DOI — not checkedref49
no DOI — not checkedref50
no DOI — not checkedref51
no DOI — not checkedref52
no DOI — not checkedref53
no DOI — not checkedref55
no DOI — not checkedref57
no DOI — not checkedref59
no DOI — not checkedref61
no DOI — not checkedref63
no DOI — not checkedref65
no DOI — not checkedref66
no DOI — not checkedref69
no DOI — not checkedref70
no DOI — not checkedref73
no DOI — not checkedref75
no DOI — not checkedref76
no DOI — not checkedEnplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co
no DOI — not checkedref82
no DOI — not checkedref83
no DOI — not checkedref84
no DOI — not checkedref86
no DOI — not checkedref91
no DOI — not checkedref92
no DOI — not checkedPower Integrations disclaimed reliance on the entire market value rule, yet did not apportion a reasonable royalty payment to the patented features
no DOI — not checkedref94
no DOI — not checkedref96
no DOI — not checkedref98
no DOI — not checkedref99
no DOI — not checkedref101
no DOI — not checkedref102
no DOI — not checkedref103
no DOI — not checkedref105
no DOI — not checkedref107
no DOI — not checkedref108
no DOI — not checkedref109
no DOI — not checkedref111
no DOI — not checkedref112
no DOI — not checkedref113
no DOI — not checkedref114
no DOI — not checkedref116
no DOI — not checkedref119
no DOI — not checkedref121
no DOI — not checkedref122
no DOI — not checkedref123
no DOI — not checkedref124
no DOI — not checkedref126
no DOI — not checkedref127
no DOI — not checkedref128
no DOI — not checkedref129
no DOI — not checkedref130
no DOI — not checkedref132
no DOI — not checkedref133
no DOI — not checkedref135
no DOI — not checkedref136
no DOI — not checkedref139
no DOI — not checkedref140
no DOI — not checkedref141
no DOI — not checkedref143
no DOI — not checkedref146
no DOI — not checkedref148
no DOI — not checkedref150
no DOI — not checkedref151
no DOI — not checkedref152
no DOI — not checkedref153
no DOI — not checkedref154
no DOI — not checkedref155
no DOI — not checkedref158
no DOI — not checkedref159
no DOI — not checkedref161
no DOI — not checkedref162
no DOI — not checkedref163
no DOI — not checkedref164
no DOI — not checkedref165
no DOI — not checkedref166
no DOI — not checkedref167
no DOI — not checkedref169
no DOI — not checkedref171
no DOI — not checkedref173
no DOI — not checkedref176
no DOI — not checkedref177
no DOI — not checkedref178
no DOI — not checkedref180
no DOI — not checkedref182
no DOI — not checkedref183
no DOI — not checkedref184
no DOI — not checkedref185
no DOI — not checkedref186
no DOI — not checkedref187
no DOI — not checkedref188
no DOI — not checkedref189
no DOI — not checkedref192
no DOI — not checkedref193
no DOI — not checkedref194
no DOI — not checkedref196
no DOI — not checkedref197
no DOI — not checkedref199
no DOI — not checkedref200
no DOI — not checkedref201
no DOI — not checkedref202
no DOI — not checkedref203
no DOI — not checkedref204
no DOI — not checkeddissenting) (citing 784 F.3d 219
no DOI — not checkedref206
no DOI — not checkedref207
no DOI — not checkedref208
no DOI — not checkedref210
no DOI — not checkedref211
no DOI — not checkedref212
no DOI — not checkedref215
no DOI — not checkedref216
no DOI — not checkedref217
no DOI — not checkedref218
no DOI — not checkedref220
no DOI — not checkedref221
no DOI — not checkedref222
no DOI — not checkedref225
no DOI — not checkedref226
no DOI — not checkedref227
no DOI — not checkedref228
no DOI — not checkedref229
no DOI — not checkedref230
no DOI — not checkedref231
no DOI — not checkedref232
no DOI — not checkedref235
no DOI — not checkedref236
no DOI — not checkedref237
no DOI — not checkedref238
no DOI — not checkedref239
no DOI — not checkedref240
no DOI — not checkedref241
no DOI — not checkedref243
no DOI — not checkedref244
no DOI — not checkedref245
no DOI — not checkedref248
no DOI — not checkedref249
no DOI — not checkedref251
no DOI — not checkedref252
no DOI — not checkedref256
no DOI — not checkedref257
no DOI — not checkedref258
no DOI — not checkedref259
no DOI — not checkedSalesforce") in district court. 828 Salesforce then petitioned for inter partes review but was rejected as time-barred by � 315(b). 829 Salesforce next renewed its contract with RPX, a company that "costeffectively extricate[s]" clients from suits. 830 Shortly thereafter, RPX petitioned for IPRs on the same patents. 831 The PTAB allowed discovery as to whether Salesforce was a real party in interest or whether RPX was in privy with Salesforce. 832 On the one hand
no DOI — not checkedref261
no DOI — not checkedref263
no DOI — not checkedref264
no DOI — not checkedref267
no DOI — not checkedref268
no DOI — not checkedref269
no DOI — not checkedref270
no DOI — not checkedref271
no DOI — not checkedref272
no DOI — not checkedref273
no DOI — not checkedref274
no DOI — not checkedref275
no DOI — not checkedref276
no DOI — not checkedref277
no DOI — not checkedref278
no DOI — not checkedref280
no DOI — not checked1351 (quoting Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed
no DOI — not checkedref282
no DOI — not checkedat 1342 (citing Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
no DOI — not checkedref284
no DOI — not checkedref285
no DOI — not checkedref286
no DOI — not checkedref287
no DOI — not checkedPTAB"), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's denial of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe's ("Tribe") motion invoking tribal sovereign immunity to terminate the inter partes review
no DOI — not checkedref289
no DOI — not checkedref290
no DOI — not checkedref292
no DOI — not checkedref293
no DOI — not checkedref295
no DOI — not checkedref296
no DOI — not checkedref298
no DOI — not checkedref299
no DOI — not checkedref302
no DOI — not checkedref303
no DOI — not checkedref304
no DOI — not checkedref305
no DOI — not checkedref306
no DOI — not checkedref307
no DOI — not checkedref308
no DOI — not checkedref309
no DOI — not checkedref310
no DOI — not checkedref311
no DOI — not checkedref314
no DOI — not checkedref315
no DOI — not checkedref317
no DOI — not checkedref318
no DOI — not checkedref319
no DOI — not checkedref322
no DOI — not checkedref323
no DOI — not checkedref324
no DOI — not checkedref325
no DOI — not checkedref326
no DOI — not checkedref327
no DOI — not checkedref328
no DOI — not checked2017)). Indeed, the court said that any lack of clarity in the district decision counseled waiting until clear contrasting decisions in multiple circuits forced reassessment
no DOI — not checkedref330
no DOI — not checkedref331
no DOI — not checkedref332
no DOI — not checkedref333
no DOI — not checkedref334
no DOI — not checkeddissenting) (quoting In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355
no DOI — not checkeddissenting) (citing In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d at 1361)
no DOI — not checkedref337
no DOI — not checkedref338
no DOI — not checkedref339
no DOI — not checkedref340
no DOI — not checkedref342
no DOI — not checkedref343
no DOI — not checkeddissenting) (citing Timothy B. Dyk, Federal Circuit Jurisdiction: Looking Back and Thinking Forward
no DOI — not checkeddissenting) (quoting CUPP Cybersecurity
no DOI — not checkedref346
no DOI — not checkedref347
no DOI — not checkedref348
no DOI — not checkedref349
no DOI — not checkedref353
no DOI — not checkedOn appeal, the Federal Circuit first held the district court had erred by deciding the case under Gilead. 924 That case involved an applicant who could have but did not take efforts to conclude patent prosecution; it held that the PTO's PTA-related regulations were reasonable in that context. 925 But this case, by contrast, entailed an applicant who for some time could not have taken efforts to conclude prosecution. 926 An analysis of the statute and the agency regulations was thus in order. Moving to the Chevron analysis, the Federal Circuit decided the matter at step one: the PTA directly addressed the precise question at issue. 927 The issue was "whether the [PTO] may reduce PTA by a period that exceeds the 'time during which the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution
no DOI — not checkedref355
no DOI — not checkedref356
no DOI — not checkedref357
no DOI — not checkedref359
no DOI — not checkedref360
no DOI — not checkedref361
no DOI — not checkedref362
no DOI — not checkedref363
no DOI — not checkedref365
no DOI — not checkedref366
no DOI — not checkedPTAB"), the Federal Circuit granted appellant's motion and remanded the matter for additional proceedings to
no DOI — not checked) a set of three references. 935 The PTO granted IPR based on ground (1), and ultimately found that ground not persuasive; it declined to consider ground (2) or say why its decision on ground (1) determined the outcome on ground (2). 936 On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that SAS Institute requires that the PTAB consider and decide not only each claim challenged but also each ground for each challenge. 937 Nike had argued that SAS Institute was limited to requiring that a decision be made on all claims petitioned, but not on all grounds. 938 But under SAS Institute
no DOI — not checkedPTAB") denied a request for rehearing by panel, holding that an institution decision need not analyze every challenged claim nor every asserted ground in the petition
no DOI — not checkedref372
no DOI — not checkedref373
no DOI — not checkedref375
no DOI — not checkedOyster Optics, LLC, No. IPR2018-00070
no DOI — not checkedref380
no DOI — not checkedref381
no DOI — not checkedref382
no DOI — not checkedat 1315 (citing Click-to-Call Techs
no DOI — not checkedref384
no DOI — not checkedref385
no DOI — not checkedref386
no DOI — not checkedref387
no DOI — not checkedref388
no DOI — not checkedref389
no DOI — not checkedref390
no DOI — not checkedref391
no DOI — not checkedref392
no DOI — not checkedref393
no DOI — not checkedref394
no DOI — not checkedref395
no DOI — not checkedref396
no DOI — not checkedIt raised no new portions of prior art nor developed any new theory-it simply stated in more specific terms what it had contended in its petition. 966 Furthermore, because the PTAB developed new claim constructions in light of Intellectual Ventures' response, Ericsson deserved an opportunity to reply in a way specific to these constructions
no DOI — not checkedIPR") on the claims at issue, the PTAB found them not unpatentable for obviousness. 968 DuPont appealed; Synvina asserted that, because Synvina had not asserted infringement claims against DuPont
no DOI — not checkedEven though the PTAB does not require such standing to initiate IPR, 971 appellants from the PTAB to the Federal Circuit must meet the Article III test, informed in the IPR appeals context by 28 U.S.C. � 1295(a)(4)(A). 972 Article III standing requires an appellant to show she has "(1) suffered an injury in fact
no DOI — not checkedref401
no DOI — not checkedref402
no DOI — not checkedref403
no DOI — not checkedref404
no DOI — not checkedref405
no DOI — not checkedref406
no DOI — not checkedref409
no DOI — not checkedBecause the federal government cannot be sued for patent infringement under the Patent Act, Return Mail sued for compensation under 28 U.S.C. � 1498(a) at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. 987 The U.S. Postal Office petitioned for a covered business method
no DOI — not checkedref411
no DOI — not checkedref412
no DOI — not checkedref413
no DOI — not checkedref414
no DOI — not checkedref415
no DOI — not checkedref416
no DOI — not checkedPetition for a Writ of Certiorari for Appellant, Return Mail
no DOI — not checkedref420
no DOI — not checkedref421
no DOI — not checked989 On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the PTAB had authority to initiate the proceeding. 990 Return Mail petitioned for review on two questions. Its second question-"whether a � 1498(a) action for the eminent domain taking of a patent license by the government is a suit for patent 'infringement' under the AIA" 991 -was not granted certiorari
no DOI — not checkedref426
no DOI — not checkedref427
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-08-28 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.3384265"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.3384265/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.3384265)