 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Miracle Optics, Inc., 04-1138,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case related to a patent for eyeglasses, the district court's literal infringement determination was that the accused product did not read on the claimed invention. It also found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents unavailable. The court reviewed claim construction de novo, and found that these determinations were erroneous.
|
|||||
| Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc., 05-1114,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed an inventor's breach of contract and related tort claims where despite references to patent infringement, defendants were not charged with infringement and German courts were a more suitable forum for the dispute concerning rights and remedies under German contract law.
|
|||||
| In re Impax Labs., Inc., MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET NO. 815,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Decided , March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner did not show that its right to the issuance of mandamus was clear and indisputable because the district court properly struck petitioner's jury trial demand as to patent issues after respondent withdrew its request for damages and petitioner failed to allege a single question of fact common to its antitrust and patent counterclaims.
|
|||||
| O'Branovic v. Nicholson, 05-7166,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Decided , March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc., 05-1159,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving an alleged infringer of copyrights and a furniture design patent, because the trial court mistakenly applied both the extrinsic and intrinsic tests for substantial similarity in copyright infringement, and an element-by-element test for design patent infringement, the court reversed summary judgment grants of non-infringement.
|
|||||
| Fiber Optic Designs, Inc. v. Seasonal Specialties, LLC, 05-1488,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Standard rule that a claim construction should decline to incorporate additional limitations from the specification governed. District court erred in concluding that an alleged infringer raised a substantial question that a patent claim was limited to light strings without current-limiting circuitry. Denial of preliminary injunction was vacated.
|
|||||
| Kutty v. HUD, 05-3314,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Decided , March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
