 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jakks Pac., Inc. v. Imperial Toy Corp., 2006-1277,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 18, 2006, Decided , April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Long Island Savs. Bank, FSB v. United States, 06-5029, 06-5034,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 18, 2006, Decided , April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Macrovision Corp. v. 321 Studios, 2004-1442,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 18, 2006, Decided , April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Magnivision, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 05-1533,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 18, 2006, Decided , April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. v. Contec Corp., 05-1351, 05-1352,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although "a" or "an" normally carried the meaning of "one or more" in claims containing the transitional phrase "comprising," the patentee clearly intended the use of only one entry initiate key by the phrase "an entry initiate key;" thus, summary judgment of non-infringement was proper because the accused device required a user to press two keys.
|
|||||
| Shokoohe v. VA, 2006-3149,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 18, 2006, Decided , April 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Mgmt., LLC, 05-1177, 05-1192,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in its construction of a patent claiming software that aggregated and integrated securities trading and order placement information from various alternative trading systems; the distributing and displaying limitations covered an embodiment that distributed and displayed information for only a subset of the combined order book.
|
|||||
| Nash v. Microsoft Corp., 05-1385, 05-1394,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Decided , April 19, 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. |
