Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Co.
Intrinsic record and dictionary definitions support the district court finding of no literal infringement, but the '514 Patent was not anticipated by the prior art nor was it unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
|
Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.
Preliminary injunction vacated for erroneous claim construction
|
Exigent Technology, Inc. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc.
Summary judgment of non-infringement affirmed
|
Fieldturf Int'l, Inc. v. Sprinturf, Inc.
Company's bid was not considered an offer to sell that infringed competitor's patent.
|
Inpro II Licensing v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
District court correctly limited a claim term based on the specification's description of the invention and prosecution history.
|
Lawman Armor Corp. v. Winner Int'l, LLC
A combination in a design patent of many non-novel "points of novelty" itself is not an additional "point of novelty"
|
Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.
Testimony supporting priority-of-invention claim must be adequately corroborated.
|
nCube Corp. v. SeaChange Int'l, Inc.
Court will not import claim limitations; willful infringement found where information given to opinion counsel was manipulated
|
Varco, L.P. v. Pason Systems USA Corp.
The trial courts claim construction was unduly narrow
|