 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ath. Alternatives, Inc. v. Benetton Trading USA, Inc., 05-1378,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the appellate court found no clear error in the district court's factual determination that the disputed string in each of the accused racquets was anchored in the corner and not the side, the appellate court upheld the district court's decision that a competitor's accused racquets did not infringe a claim of the holder's patent.
|
|||||
| Lopez v. Nicholson, 05-7197,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided , March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McClain v. OPM, 2006-3183,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided , March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., 05-1074, -1075, -1100,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The jury verdict of infringement was based on a partly incorrect claim construction under 35 U.S.C.S. § 112, and on the correct construction a reasonable jury could not have found the patent to be infringed. Accordingly, the judgment of infringement against the corporation was reversed and the damages award was vacated.
|
|||||
| Tekeley v. Gov't Accountability Office, 05-3374,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: OPM did not exceed its statutory authority when it adopted 5 C.F.R. § 846.204(b)(2)(1996) to provide a mechanism for employees to correct administrative mistakes that led to erroneous retirement coverage. Regulation filled a gap in statutory framework and was formally promulgated; its adoption was within OPM's authority under 5 U.S.C.S. § 8461.
|
|||||
| Winsett v. Nicholson, 05-7181,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided , March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 04-5100, -5102,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals affirmed court of claims' judgment that corporation could not sue U.S. under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1498(a) for patent infringement because infringing acts occurred outside U.S., but reversed court of claims' judgment that it had jurisdiction because corporation could allege patent infringement as Fifth Amendment taking under Tucker Act.
|
|||||
| Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. United States, 06-1104,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Decided , April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Elementis Specialties, Inc. v. Dudas, 05-1239,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Decided , April 3, 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. |
