|
| |
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.
|
| |
Federal Courts -
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals - April 26, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
Ath. Alternatives, Inc. v. Benetton Trading USA, Inc., 05-1378,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided , April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Kinzenbaw v. Case LLC, 05-1483,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where patent holder did not get infringement verdict, but its patent was ruled not invalid, alleged infringer was prevailing party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Alleged infringer's costs award was reduced from $ 303,826 to $ 41,132, in large part under application of a narrow interpretation of "exemplification," as used in 28 U.S.C.S. § 1920(4).
|
|
| |
Kokenge v. Nicholson, 05-7184,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Absent a constitutional issue, the court could not review a challenge to a factual determination or a challenge to application of a law or regulation to the facts of a particular case, 38 U.S.C.S. § 7292(d)(2). Since appellant only challenged such matters, his appeal, related to denial of service connection, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
|
|
| |
Kwik Prods. v. Nat'l Express, Inc., 05-1319,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendants were properly granted a judgment for noninfringement of plaintiff's patent because the district court correctly applied 35 U.S.C.S. § 112, P6, to the means-plus-function limitation "clamping means" and, even if the term "clamp" had a reasonably well understood meaning in the art, it was not the same as a clamping means.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
