 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 2006-1260, 2006-1437,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Patent was directed to an orthopedic nail. Since claim construction was correct and substantial evidence supported a jury's finding that defendants' product embodied each claim limitation at issue, the judgment of infringement was affirmed. Permanent injunction was remanded, as traditional four-factor test for injunctions applied to patent cases.
|
|||||
| Brodowy v. United States, 2006-5113,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pay conversion action to recover pay lost due to government's failure to provide a two-step pay increase was properly dismissed because 5 U.S.C.S. § 5334(b) did not apply when the employees' new positions fell outside the General Schedule (GS) pay system and they moved from GS positions to non-GS positions and, thus, they failed to state a claim.
|
|||||
| In re Reed Elsevier Props., 2006-1309 (Serial No. 75/530,795),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported decision of PTO denying registration under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1052(e) of appellant corporation's mark LAWYERS.COM as generic and unregisterable. Contrary to the corporation's contention, information exchange about lawyers was not at all discrete from information exchange about the law, legal news, and legal services.
|
|||||
| Rosado v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2007-3116,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 12, 2007, Decided , April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hardy v. United States Postal Serv., 2007-3112,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 13, 2007, Decided , April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Stoyanov v. Dep't of the Navy, 2006-3363,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 13, 2007, Decided , April 13, 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. |
