 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cal. Indus. Prods. v. United States, 05-1087,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the government previously granted duty drawbacks for exported steel scrap, the government's denial of a manufacturer's subsequent drawback claims constituted a change in treatment of substantially identical transactions and thus the government improperly failed to comply with the notice and comment provisions of 19 U.S.C.S. § 1625(c).
|
|||||
| Motorola, Inc. v. United States, 05-1025, 05-1041,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an importer of battery pack circuits asserted that the government misclassified the circuits as dutiable, the classification was proper since the circuit elements were not indivisibly combined as required for non-dutiable status, but it remained to determine whether the notice and comment provisions of 19 U.S.C.S. § 1625 were applicable.
|
|||||
| Nichols Inst. Diagnostics, Inc. v. Scantibodies Clinical Lab, Inc., 06-1087, 06-1134,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In deciding whether to grant a stay or injunction, pending appeal, the court assessed a movant's chances of success on the merits and weighed the equities as they affected the parties and the public. An alleged patent infringer showed the requisite likelihood of success to obtain a stay of an injunction pending appeal.
|
|||||
| Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 04-1189, 04-1347, 04-1357,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 04-1189, -1347, -1357,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where court found plaintiff's patents invalid due to inequitable conduct, it properly found that plaintiff failed to disclose material information to PTO, but as level of materiality of non-disclosure was not especially high, it needed to conduct further fact-finding as to level of materiality and evidence of intent, and to weigh these factors.
|
|||||
| Royal Thai Gov't v. United States, 05-1117, 05-1118,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the government determined that a foreign steel company received no countervailable subsidies, the government properly found that the company's debt restructuring was not specific and properly declined to investigate a bare allegation of equity infusion, but the government also properly countervailed the company's entire import duty exemption.
|
|||||
| Siderca S.A.I.C. v. United States, 06-1051,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided , February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 05-1136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the owner of a patent for an automatic drilling system alleged patent infringement, in denying preliminary injunctive relief, patent claims were improperly construed to require manual rather than automatic selection and calibration of parameters, and to require the use of pneumatically operated valves in performing a relaying step.
|
|||||
| Zwagil v. GSA, 05-3088,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence supported a finding that a federal police officer deliberately and repeatedly failed to carry out assigned patrol and inspection duties but, upon finding that a charge of making a threatening comments was not warranted, it was improper to sustain the penalty of removal without further consideration of possible agency action.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
