Affirmed - PDFSEARCH.IO - Document Search Engine

Affirmed
Results: 322

#	Item
91	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.
92	On August 16, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that Brinkmann did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,594,433, which related to omni-directional light emitting diode (LED) lamps. The Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-08-25 11:13:59 Prosecution history estoppel Doctrine of equivalents Estoppel Patent Claim Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Law Patent law Civil law
93	On June 7, 2005, the Federal Circuit, inter alia, affirmed the district court’s judgment entering the jury verdict that Atlas did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,439,346, which related to turbine grinder rotary speed go Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-07-01 10:06:23 Jury Appeal Patent infringement Expert witness Law Legal procedure Motion
94	On August 19, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that Techniche did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,371,977, which related to a protective mu Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-08-25 11:13:30 Common law Equity Doctrine of equivalents Prosecution history estoppel Estoppel United States patent law Claim Patent Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Law Civil law Patent law
95	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
96	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
97	On October 5, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that Biocrest infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,981,797, which related to improved DNA uptake comp Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-10-10 20:29:56 Invitrogen Ownership Secrecy Law Government Intellectual property law Monopoly Patent
98	On March 16, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed, inter alia, the district court’s partial summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 6,396,273, which related to radio frequency coils for magnetic resonance imaging, was inva Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-03-30 13:27:01 Property law Claim Person having ordinary skill in the art Patent In re Bilski United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent law Law Civil law
99	On August 16, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that TiVo did not infringe U.S. Reissue Patent No. 36,801, which related to digital video recording. The Federal Circuit stated: TE Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-08-25 11:14:03 Circular buffer Data buffer Digital video recorder Signal Claim Telecommunications engineering Electronics Data Computer memory Digital signal processing Arrays
100	On October 3, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part and remanded the district court’s judgment following a bench trial that Interact did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 4,494,754, which related to a Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-10-10 20:30:44 Control theory Mathematics Game controllers Function

UPDATE