 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 05-1359,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In patent action relating to method of synthesizing difluoromethane, district court correctly construed "chromium catalyst" claim as catalyst where the only catalytically active material was chromium without addition of metal oxides or non-inert additives. There was no infringement, but findings of inequitable conduct and anticipation were error.
|
|||||
| Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, Inc., 06-1174,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 23, 2006, Decided , March 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 05-1103,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the court lacked full context of the infringement action and the claim construction component, the court could not fully and confidently review the infringement judgment, including its claim construction component. Thus, the court vacated and remanded to the district court for a detailed analysis of the disputed claim construction.
|
|||||
| Affymetrix, Inc. v. Multilyte Ltd., 05-1460,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Decided , March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 01-5011, 01-5012,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a regulatory taking case brought under U.S. Const. amend V, a remand was necessary because it was unclear whether the claim was ripe; investors could have shown administrative futility based on delays and refusals to provide information by a federal agency.
|
|||||
| Apotex, Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, 05-1608,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Decided , March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Harris v. United States Postal Serv., 2006-3170,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Decided , March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Paine v. MSPB, 2006-3165,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Decided , March 24, 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. |
