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 ...
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.
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.
Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. Qualcomm I - Qualcomm IV, was a series of US Federal cases between Qualcomm Inc. and Broadcom Corp. involving patent infringement and the duty to disclose patents to the JVT Standard Setting Organization and industry misconduct. Qualcomm held a relevant patent, but neglected to report it to the Standard Setting ...
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.
Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law that examined the relationship between the doctrine of equivalents (which holds that a patent can be infringed by something that is not literally falling within the scope of the claims because a somewhat insubstantial feature or element has been ...
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.
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving patent law. [1] It arose from a lawsuit filed by MedImmune which challenged one of the Cabilly patents issued to Genentech.