Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
According to the Court, an essential requirement for validity of a patent is that the "subject matter display invention, more ingenuity than the work of a mechanic skilled in the art".
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), [1] was a case decided by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit en banc, that clarified the hierarchy of evidentiary sources usable for claim construction in patent law.
A group of shareholders in the Oracle Corporation sought to bring a derivative suit on allegations of insider trading against the corporation's directors, mainly the CEO Larry Ellison, Donald Lucas, and Michael Boskin.
Netscape, 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002), [1] is a ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the enforceability of clickwrap licenses under contract law. The court held that merely clicking on a download button does not show consent with license terms, if those terms were not conspicuous and if it was not ...
Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation, 549 U.S. 422 (2007), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court held a United States district court has discretion to respond at once to a defendant's forum non conveniens plea, and need not take up first any other threshold objection.
Raytheon Production Corp. v. Commissioner, 144 F.2d 110 (1st Cir. 1944), [1] cert. denied, 323 U.S. 779 (1944) [2] is a United States income tax case that discusses the tax deductibility of damages for loss of business good will.
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 ...
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 [1] permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of § 1332, [2] provided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirements.