Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial economy or procedural economy [1] [2] [3] is the principle that the limited resources of the legal system or a given court should be conserved by the refusal to decide one or more claims raised in a case.
In 1999, Metabolite sued LabCorp for infringement of a patent covering a diagnostic test. The single claim at issue, claim 13, is reproduced in full below: "A method for detecting a deficiency of cobalamin or folate in warm-blooded animals comprising the steps of: "assaying a body fluid for an elevated level of total homocysteine; and "correlating an elevated level of total homocysteine in ...
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) Set the standard for what parties must establish in evidence to be granted summary judgement in federal civil cases and how courts should evaluate those motions. Since such motions are extremely common, Anderson has become the most-cited Supreme Court case. Daubert v.
Case name Citation Date decided Train v. Colo. Pub. Interest Research Group, Inc. 426 U.S. 1: ... United States Supreme Court cases in volume 426 (Open Jurist)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]
In case law, a test case is a lawsuit whose purpose is to establish an important legal principle or right and to set a precedent. [1] Test cases are brought to court with the intention of challenging, interpreting, or receiving clarification on a present law , regulation, or constitutional principle. [ 2 ]
On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit, holding that the disputed claim 4 of the patent was obvious under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103, and that in "rejecting the District Court’s rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with §103 and our precedents," referring to the Federal Circuit ...
The appellate courts that have followed the Kennedy test have concluded that it is a logical subset of the Rapanos plurality test and therefore controlling. The appellate courts that have adopted both Rapanos tests (the First and Eighth Circuits) have concluded that Marks does not apply to Rapanos and that both tests are equally valid.