 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| BASF Corp. v. United States, 05-1477, -1523,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lower court's classification of the beta-carotene product as a colorant was in accord with the HTSUS, 19 U.S.C.S. § 1202, because the classification described the product in the most specific manner possible and for the manner in which use of it was intended. Product did not need to be categorized as a pharmaceutical.
|
|||||
| Citizen Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Osram GmbH, 2006-1211,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the District of Columbia Circuit, the curable defect doctrine was limited to events that occurred after the original dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff was estopped from relying on events which existed at the time of dismissal of its first declaratory judgment (DJ) action as supporting an actual controversy in its second DJ complaint.
|
|||||
| Lapointe v. Nicholson, 2007-7016,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 29, 2007, Decided , March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Louis B. Fine Family, LLC v. Potter, 2006-1529,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 29, 2007, Decided , March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Merck & Co. v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., 2006-1401,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The term of a drug company's patent could be extended for regulatory delays pursuant to 35 U.S.C.S. § 156(a) from the termination date as modified pursuant to as adjusted under 35 U.S.C.S. § 154(b), even though the patent in issue was already subject to a terminal disclaimer under 35 U.S.C.S. § 253.
|
|||||
| Thomas Creek Lumber & Log Co. v. Johanns, 2006-1544,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| AFG Indus. v. Cardinal IG Co., 05-1601,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' judgment of patent infringement was remanded for the allocation of damages in accordance with the proportion of infringing product because the claim construction was limited to products whose central zinc oxide core was produced by single sputter deposit and the record did not show what portion of defendants' products were so produced.
|
|||||
| Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 06-1181,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where owners of patents sued a generic drug manufacturer for infringement of only one patent, the manufacturer was entitled to seek declaratory relief with regard to non-infringement of related patents since no showing of a reasonable apprehension of imminent litigation was required, and all the circumstances indicated a justiciable controversy.
|
|||||
| Barrett v. Nicholson, 05-7113,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 2, 2007, Decided , April 2, 2007, 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. |
