 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharms., Inc., 05-1513,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although patent holders' submissions to the PTO were insufficient, there was another reasonable inference other than a finding of intent to deceive--namely if the comparison between different doses was reasonable, the failure to disclose may have been due purely to inadvertence; thus, summary judgment of unenforceability was reversed.
|
|||||
| Bratsk Aluminium Smelter v. United States, 05-1213,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: International Trade Commission's (ITC) summary finding of material injury was insufficiently detailed to comply with the causation requirements. Thus, the ITC's determination was vacated and the case was remanded so that the ITC could address whether the non-subject imports would have replaced subject imports during the period of investigation.
|
|||||
| Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. King Pharms., Inc., 2006-1219,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Decided , April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ferring B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 05-1284,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Decided , April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gouldner v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 05-3318,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On review of a reconsideration by the Office of Personnel Management of denial of an employee's request for disability retirement under the Federal Employees Retirement System, the denial was affirmed. Review of an MSPB decision was limited under 5 U.S.C.S. § 7703(c), and the court could not consider the factual underpinnings of the decision.
|
|||||
| Kavanagh v. MSPB, 05-3348,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: MSPB did not have jurisdiction over individual right of action appeal. Employee's disclosures were memoranda with suggestions and suggested procedures for improving agency procedures, but they were not protected disclosures, 5 U.S.C.S. § 2302(b)(8); they did not demonstrate rule or regulation violation, gross mismanagement, or abuse of authority.
|
|||||
| Miguel Torres, S.A. v. Bodegas Muga, S.A., 05-1520,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The factors that favored the Spanish winery were sufficient, when balanced against the factors that favored the trademark holder, to support the conclusion that the Spanish winery's mark was unlikely to cause confusion as to the source of the goods to which it was affixed under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1052(d).
|
|||||
| Miller v. Dep't of Agric., 2006-3185,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Decided , April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mueller Sports Med., Inc. v. Beveridge Mktg., LLC, 05-1437,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 10, 2006, Decided , April 10, 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. |
