 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barnes v. OPM, 2006-3150,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Decided , March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Bernt v. VA, 2006-3167,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Decided , March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Boykin v. OPM, 2005-3356,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Decided , March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Switch & Data Mgmt. Co. LLC, 2006-1150,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Decided , March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 05-1179, 05-1248,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Decided , March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Chamberlain Group, 05-1339,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court lacked jurisdiction to consider a manufacturer's declaratory action against two patent owners because the manufacturer failed to show the requisite apprehension of being sued for patent infringement and its economic interest in clarifying it customers' rights under the patents could not form the basis of an actual controversy.
|
|||||
| Paine v. MSPB, 2006-3165,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Decided , March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc., 05-1278,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted the shoe manufacturers summary judgment of noninfringement where the claim term "orthotic device" had to be defined as a removable insert or immovable insert portion of a shoe and the patent claim's subsidiary limitation of a rigid heel seat was not met.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Dep't of the Army, 05-3041,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 15, 2006, Decided , March 15, 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. |
