|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more.
lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
|
| |
Federal Courts -
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals - January 4, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
DESA IP, LLC v. EML Techs., LLC, 06-1168,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Claims in patent for motion-activated security lights were properly subject to presumption under 35 U.S.C.S. § 112, para. 6, that claims covered structure since claims used the term "means" without denoting structure, but "sensor means" was improperly construed to include selection circuitry since only passive infrared sensors detected motion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Propat Int'l Corp. v. RPost US, Inc., 2006-1222, 2006-1223, 2006-1270,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: A grantee of rights from a patentee to grant and enforce patent licenses and sue infringers lacked standing to sue alleged infringers, since the patentee retained sufficient rights in the patent, including ownership and control of the grantee's decisions, that it could not be said that the grantee had all substantial rights in the patent.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
