 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 05-1357,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the corporation failed to identify the 7 protests in the summons, the summons was insufficient to commence an action in the U.S. Court of International Trade as to the 7 omitted protests within the 180-day limitation period of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2636(a). Thus, the court correctly denied the corporation's motion to amend the summons.
|
|||||
| Exigent Tech. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc., 05-1338,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a patent case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that defendant, as movant, discharged its summary judgment burden by stating that the patent owner had no evidence of infringement and pointing to the specific ways in which the accused systems did not meet the claim limitations.
|
|||||
| In re Kahn, 04-1616 (Serial No. 08/773,282),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in rejecting twenty claims in a patent application as prima facie obvious under 35 U.S.C.S. § 103 where the factual findings underlying the Board's analysis, including the findings on motivation to combine the teachings of three prior patents, were supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| M. Eagles Tool Warehouse, Inc. v. Fisher Tooling Co., 05-1224, 05-1228,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mangum v. Nicholson, 2005-7041,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McPhail v. Nicholson, 05-7118,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rosell v. MSPB, 06-3139,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 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. |
