Federal Patent Court - PDFSEARCH.IO - Document Search Engine

Federal Patent Court
Results: 603

#	Item
101	On April 11, 2005, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Bowling’s complaint that Hasbro infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,938,197, which related to a die for random num Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-05-05 15:17:21 Prejudice Motion Civil procedure Voluntary dismissal Day v. McDonough Law Legal terms Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
102	On April 8, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment after a bench trial that U.S. Patent No. 4,721,723, which related to paroxetine hydrochloride anhydrate, is invalid as anticipated under 35 U Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-05-05 15:17:16 Property law Doctrine of inherency Prior art Sufficiency of disclosure Novelty Patent Person having ordinary skill in the art United States patent law Claim Patent law Law Civil law
103	On April 11, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that PPG did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,013,234, which relates to certain essentially sph Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-05-05 15:17:20 Rhodia Claim Patent Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Patent law Doctrine of equivalents Law
104	On March 15, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that Benetton did not infringe U.S. Patents No. 5,803,466 and No. 6,045,143, which related to in-line roller skates. The Federal Cir Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-03-30 13:26:11 Claim Person having ordinary skill in the art Patent Patent law Law Doctrine of equivalents
105	On July 8, 2005, the Federal Circuit, inter alia, vacated and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that Proctor & Gamble did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,535,474, which related to a toothbrush with elastic Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-08-05 21:31:56 Claim Prosecution history estoppel Doctrine of equivalents Prior art Person having ordinary skill in the art Patent law Law Patent examiner
106	On August 2, 2005, the Federal Circuit, inter alia, reversed the district court’s judgment as a matter of law and reinstated the jury verdict that ApplyYourself infringed U.S. Patents No. 6,345,278 and No. 6,460,042, w Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-08-05 21:33:29 Appeal Appellate review Lawsuits Legal procedure District Court Claim Prejudice Prior art Law Patent law Legal terms
107	On August 5, 2005, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law that Ericsson did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 4,365,338, which related Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-08-05 21:34:10 Common law Equity Court systems Estoppel Appeal Waiver Circuit court Law Civil law Contract law
108	On October 5, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the district court’s judgment after a bench trial that U.S. Patent No. 5,633,352, which related to recombinant human growth hormone, was inva Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-10-10 20:30:10 Inequitable conduct United States law Intellectual property law Misrepresentation Novo Nordisk Patent United States patent law Law Ethics
109	On August 5, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 6,014,137, which related to an electronic kiosk authoring system, was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. The Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-08-05 21:34:00 Patent Law Government Patent law Claim Intellectual property law
110	On July 13, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that Microsoft infringed U.S. Reissue Patent No. 32,580 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) for copies of the Windows® operating system that had been Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-08-05 21:32:26 Dow Jones Industrial Average Microsoft Economy of the United States

UPDATE