 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gemini Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 05-5136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Decided , May 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Indep. Ink, Inc. v. Ill. Tool Works, Inc., 04-1196,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Decided , May 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 05-1233,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's judgment of noninfringement of a patent directed to novel personal digital assistant modules was affirmed where the patent term "host interface" was properly construed as a direct parallel bus interface and the patent holder stipulated that it could not have prevailed if the district court's construction was correct.
|
|||||
| Banks v. United States Postal Serv., 05-3363,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: MSPB's decision that a USPS employee was properly removed for falsely stating that he had not been involved in a business enterprise was supported by substantial evidence, including documentation that he was an incorporator, owner, and driver for a transportation company, that was not outweighed by his wife's testimony that she owned the business.
|
|||||
| Bradley v. Nicholson, 05-7192,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims applied the correct legal standard, no constitutional violation was shown, and the Federal Circuit did not possess jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C.S. § 7292(d)(2) to review the application of the legal standard to the facts of a veteran's case, judgment of the BVA was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Brundige v. Jensen, 2006-1336,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided , May 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Freeman v. MSPB, 05-3323,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The MSPB properly dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction under 39 U.S.C.S. § 1005(a)(4)(A), an appeal of a non-preference eligible employee who was removed from his job as a USPS criminal investigator because his role in gathering data upon which supervisory decisions were made by others did not make him a supervisor or manager.
|
|||||
| Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 05-1510,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where competitor of patentee was awarded attorney fees based on inequitable conduct while patentee's appeal of judgment of patent invalidity was pending, appellate court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1295(a)(1) to review fee award since invalidity judgment was vacated and thus there was no longer final district court judgment for review.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
