Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The U.S. Supreme Court will only review cases on a discretionary basis and rarely decides patent cases. Unless overruled by a Supreme Court case, Federal Circuit decisions can dictate the results of both patent prosecution and litigation as they are universally binding on all United States district courts and the United States Patent and ...
On January 27, 2010, the court ordered the parties to address on the impact of these consolidated cases of the January 22, 2010 ruling by the International Trade Commission, as well as the status of any further proceedings in the ITC and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at the March 12, 2010 case management conference.
Concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims. Microsoft v. AT&T: 550 U.S. 437: 2007: Related to international enforceability of U.S. software patents. Quanta v. LG Electronics: 553 U.S. 617: 2008: Patent exhaustion and its applicability to certain types of method patents.
Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling.
The Court then turned to the extent, if any, to which exhaustion of the patent rights on the microprocessor products exhausted patent rights relating to the combination products on which LGE had patents. In the Univis case the sale that exhausted patent rights was a sale of an unpatented semifinished lens blank, which subsequent processing ...
Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The case was a combination of two separate lawsuits: one brought by Sperry Rand Corporation and its holding company Illinois Scientific Developments against Honeywell Corporation in Washington, D.C., charging Honeywell with patent infringement and demanding royalties, and a countersuit filed in Minneapolis, Minnesota by Honeywell charging Sperry Rand with monopoly and fraud and seeking the ...
An infringer can also be enjoined from further infringement of the patent, even to the point of being forced to remove an infringing product from the market. Until the 2006 Supreme Court case of eBay v. MercExchange, [10] plaintiffs routinely sought, and were granted, injunctions prohibiting infringement of their patents. After 2006 ...