 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lawman Armor Corp. v. Winner Int'l LLC, 05-1253,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment of non-infringement was upheld because prior art disclosed eight "points of novelty" the patent licensee specified. District court was not required to specify which particular patents disclosed each of the eight points of novelty. Combination in patent of many non-novel "points of novelty" was not an additional point of novelty.
|
|||||
| Donnelly v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 2006-3162,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Decided , February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Freund v. Dep't of the Air Force, 06-3140,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Decided , February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Smith v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 05-3264,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Merit Systems Protection Board properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider a federal employee's appeal of his removal where he had entered a valid last chance settlement agreement, he had not complied with the terms of the agreement, and the agency had not breached the agreement.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Nicholson, 05-7137,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Decided , February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Young v. Dep't of the Army, 06-3107,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Decided , February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hardy v. OPM, 05-3185,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 04-1522,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of alleged infringer in a suit pursuant to 35 U.S.C.S. § 271(e)(2). The patent, claiming paroxetine made by an allegedly novel process, was anticipated. Once a product was fully disclosed in the art, future claims to that same product were precluded, even if that product was claimed as made by a new process.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
