Patents Court - PDFSEARCH.IO - Document Search Engine

Patents Court
Results: 121

#	Item
41	On January 19, 2005, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s dismissal of CEA’s suit against CMO’s infringement of U.S. Patents No. 4,701,028, and No. 4,889,412, which related to liquid crysta Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-01-30 08:33:30 United States law Delaware Minimum contacts Lawsuit Civil procedure Jurisdiction Law
42	On October 18, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of MedImmune’s suit seeking a declaration that U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415, which relates to human antibody production, is invalid and un Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-12-07 07:28:28 Patent law Declaratory judgment Patent prosecution United States patent law Inequitable conduct Cabilly patents Law Civil law MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc.
43	On October 31, 2005, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s judgment entering the jury verdict that U.S. Patents No. 5,997,553 and No. 5,681,329, which related to castration tools, were not infr Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-12-07 07:28:41 Patent United States patent law Priority right Claim Term of patent Sufficiency of disclosure Continuing patent application Patent prosecution Patent law Law Prior art
44	On March 22, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that the defendants did not infringe U.S. Patents No. 4,974,166 and No. 5,097,4216, which rel Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-03-30 13:27:48 Claim All elements test Law Thought Patent law Doctrine of equivalents United States patent law
45	On March 16, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the district court’s judgment following the jury verdict that the defendants infringed U.S. Patents No. 5,845,265, Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-03-30 13:26:39 Intellectual property law MercExchange Patent Business method patent Injunction Auction software Law Civil law Patent law
46	On September 16, 2005, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that Cybex did not infringe U.S. Patents No. 6,238,323 and No. 6,458,061, which related to exercise equipment. The F Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-10-10 20:31:58 Property law Claim Doctrine of equivalents Patent infringement United States patent law Patent Disclaimer Prosecution disclaimer Prosecution history estoppel Patent law Law Civil law
47	On November 7, 2005, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that Graco did not infringe U.S. Patents No. 6,550,862 and No. 6,612,649, which related to a child car seat. The Feder Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-12-07 07:28:53 Infancy Child safety Graco SEAT Cup holder Baby transport Infant car seat Childhood Human development Babycare
48	On June 1, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of MedImmune’s suit against Centocor seeking a declaration that U.S. Patent No. 5,807,715, which related to chimeric immunoglobulins, was i Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-06-07 12:02:25 Law Altvater v. Freeman Cabilly patents Civil procedure Declaratory judgment Judgment
49	On May 10, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacatedin-part and remanded the district court’s judgment entering the jury verdict that Smith & Nephew infringed U.S. Patents No. 5,697,536, No. Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-06-07 12:03:53 Surgery Electrodes Neurophysiology Electrochemistry Medicine Dermatologic surgery Electrosurgery
50	On January 7, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that, inter alia, Mattel did not infringe U.S. Patents No. 5,308,080 and No. 5,419,564, whic Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-01-07 14:35:54 Statute of frauds Oral contract Mattel Meeting of the minds Contract law Law Contract

UPDATE