Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp.
District court did not err in failing to apply collateral estoppel regarding the reasonable royalty of two different accused products, and the judgment was affirmed. The jury's finding of willfulness was supported by substantial evidence.
|
Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp.
Expert affidavit of equivalence of a means-plus-function claim element raised a fact question to defeat summary judgment.
|
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.
|
Glenayre Electronics, Inc. v. Jackson
Remittitur acceptance prevents additional recovery for indirect infringement counterclaims against customers
|
Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co.
Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of willful, indirect infringement of the patentee's gas fireplace configuration; defendant was reckless in obtaining an incompetent oral opinion of noninfringement.
|
Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Management, LLC, et al.
The Federal Circuit found flaws in the district court’s interpretation of the limitation “distributing” found in claim 9 of the ’982 patent, which called into question two stipulated judgments of noninfringement. The Court construed the limitation, despite the fact that there were claims of invalidity and unenforceability pending before district court and that there was a lack of discussion of the accused products on the record. The case was vacated and remanded to the district court for furth
|
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"
|
nCube Corp. v. SeaChange Int'l, Inc.
Court will not import claim limitations; willful infringement found where information given to opinion counsel was manipulated
|
Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Technology Corp., et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.
Federal Circuit refuses to reconsider decision that Section 271(f) applies to process inventions
|