 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc., 05-1280, 05-1281, 05-1282,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court properly granted the medical device manufacturers summary judgment on the patent infringement claims where its construction of the term stent was consistent with the specification and the term's ordinary meaning, the patent holder had disavowed additional elements, and none of the accused devices had the requisite segments.
|
|||||
| Falkner v. Inglis, 05-1324, (Interference No. 105,187),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The United States Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' award of priority to a patent applicant was upheld where there was no error in the conclusions that the disclosure relied upon by the applicant for priority purposes adequately described and enabled the invention directed to poxviruses and substantial evidence supported the conclusions.
|
|||||
| Harding v. VA, 05-3182,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The United States Merit Systems Protection Board erred when it held that it lacked jurisdiction over U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs physician employee's Whistleblower Protection Act retaliatory discharge claim. 5 U.S.C.S. § 2105(f) overrode the specificity requirements of 38 U.S.C.S. § 7425(b) and the 38 U.S.C.S. § 7462 exclusivity provision.
|
|||||
| Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc., 05-1220 (Opposition No. 91/118,745),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: PTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board properly dismissed appellant's opposition to registration of a word mark after finding that appellee's choice to contest only a word mark opposition was not barred res judicata by a default judgment for appellant in the word-and-design opposition, which did not decide likelihood of confusion of different marks.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
