 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 05-1373,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement action was an abuse of discretion; while the trial court's chain of reasoning was logical, the appellate court concluded that the trial court misapplied claim differentiation and erred in its construction of the term "adjustable," thus, making it's subsequent infringement analysis flawed.
|
|||||
| Ferring B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 05-1284,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where objectivity of the declarant was an issue in the prosecution, an inventor had to disclose the known relationships and affiliations of the declarants so that those interests could be considered in weighing the declarations. Grant of summary judgment to an alleged infringer in a 35 U.S.C.S. § 271 action was upheld due to inequitable conduct.
|
|||||
| Gillespie v. Dep't of the Navy, 05-3193,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the settlement agreement specifically provided for reinstatement of the employee's appeal of a removal action as a remedy for any breach by the agency, the AJ should not have inquired into the materiality of the breach as a prerequisite for granting the remedy of reinstatement of the appeal. Agency's noncompliance was not trivial.
|
|||||
| Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co., 04-1609, 05-1141, 05-1202,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Infringement and willfulness were questions of fact reviewed for clear error. In an infringement suit on a patent related to fireplace burners and associated equipment, the district court's judgment of willful infringement and award of attorney fees based principally thereon was affirmed. The damages award was vacated and remanded.
|
|||||
| McDaniel v. OPM, 05-3224,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A claim for disability retirement "may be allowed under this section only if the application is filed with the Office before the employee or Member is separated from the service or within 1 year thereafter," 5 U.S.C.S. § 8337(b). Under the circumstances, petitioner's application was untimely. MSPB's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Murphy Law Firm v. Michles & Booth, P.A., 05-1439 (Opposition No. 91/159,613),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Nautilus Group, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 05-1577, 05-1603,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to dismiss defendant's cross-appeal was granted where the cross-appeal was improper because a party who prevailed on noninfringement had no right to file a "conditional" cross-appeal to introduce new arguments or challenge a claim construction, but may have simply asserted alternative grounds in the record for affirming the judgment.
|
|||||
| Patterson v. OPM, 05-3234,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Merit Systems Protection Board found failure to consider applicant for position under merit promotion procedures, it was proper to remand matter so that applicant could have been considered under the procedures. Decision that Office of Personnel Management complied with order was supported by substantial evidence, under 5 U.S.C.S. § 7703(c).
|
|||||
| Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Mitzi Int'l Handbag & Accessories, Ltd., 05-1342,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, 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. |
