 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adrain v. Superchips, Inc., 2006-1376,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court correctly construed claims 1 and 5 of United States Patent No. 5,523,948 ('948 patent) to require the device to remain installed in a vehicle, and because the accused products did not remain part of the vehicles, the accused products did not infringe. Claim 19 of the '948 patent was anticipated by United States Patent No. 5,278,759.
|
|||||
| Dobruck v. VA, 2006-3411,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: MSPB properly sustained an arbitrator's decision upholding an agency's removal of an employee because his due process rights were not violated and substantial evidence, including his co-workers' testimony that his quality and quantity of work were below performance standards, supported a finding that his performance was unacceptable.
|
|||||
| Hydril Co. LP v. Grant Prideco LP, 2006-1188,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manufacturers properly alleged antitrust and patent infringement claims, since competitors' threats to enforce allegedly fraudulent patent against customers, rather than manufacturers, were sufficient to support antitrust claim, and waiver of claims in licensing agreement did not bar infringement claim which arose after agreement was terminated.
|
|||||
| Int'l Custom Prods. v. United States, 2006-1531,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: United States Court of International Trade correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1581(i) where importer's challenge to a classification decision should have been brought under § 1581(a) instead. Moreover, importer failed to file a protest of Customs's actions and avail itself of jurisdiction under § 1581(a).
|
|||||
| Logan v. Hormel Foods, Inc., 2006-1114,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although district court erred in construing the term "support member in the meat" in claim 1 of United States Patent No. Re 35,374, that error was harmless where patentee failed to point to any evidence that defendant's prong used to make boneless hams helped the boneless meat maintain its shape or integrity during slicing, as required by claim 1.
|
|||||
| Marret v. Nicholson, 2007-7043,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Decided , January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Messier v. Nicholson, 2006-7202,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Savient Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 2007-1081,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Decided , January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
