United States Federal Circuit - November 2000 Opinion Summaries
Page 1 of 2
Showing Result 1 - 10 of 17
| Description | Date | Docket # |
|---|---|---|
LSI INDUS. INC. v. HUBBELL LIGHTING, INC.,United States Federal Circuit
Civil ProcedureThe Ohio Supreme Court has established that "systematic and continuous contacts" may provide a basis for general jurisdiction, notwithstanding the... |
11/29/2000 | 00-1052 |
CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. v. RICHARDSONUnited States Federal Circuit
Civil ProcedureWhere plaintiffs have an interest in proceeds to be distributed from a pool and excessive award to one claimant results in smaller pro rata... |
11/29/2000 | 99-1436 |
CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. v. RICHARDSONUnited States Federal Circuit
Civil Procedure, ContractsAgency's interpretation of contract terms is not entitled to deferential review as interpretation of a statute or regulation would be. |
11/29/2000 | 99-1529 |
FESTO CORP. v. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO., LTD.United States Federal Circuit
PatentAn amendment to a patent application that narrows the scope of a claim for any reason related to the statutory requirements for a patent will give... |
11/29/2000 | 95-1066 |
JVC CO. OF AM. v. USUnited States Federal Circuit
International TradeThe United States Customs Service properly classified appellant-s imported video camera recorders under subheading 8525.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff... |
11/21/2000 | 00-1028 |
MONASTERI v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BD.United States Federal Circuit
Administrative Law5 CFR 351.201(d) specifically precludes Merit Systems Protection Board jurisdiction over special plans for reduction in force of the State... |
11/17/2000 | 00-3038 |
BURKHARDT v. GOBERUnited States Federal Circuit
Civil ProcedureThe United States Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction over an application for costs and fees, submitted under the Equal Access to... |
11/16/2000 | 99-7034 |
WATTS v. XL SYSTEMS, INC.United States Federal Circuit
Intellectual Property, PatentWhen claim language is not clear on its face, the court must consult the specification to determine patentee definitions for the terms. |
11/14/2000 | 99-1526 |
FERNANDEZ v. DEPT. OF THE ARMYUnited States Federal Circuit
Military LawThe Veterans Program Enhancement Act of 1998, at 38 USC 4324(c), did not make the substantive provisions of the Uniformed Services Employment and... |
11/14/2000 | 00-3190 |
GIESLER v. USUnited States Federal Circuit
Government ContractsA failure to read a clause in a contract is not an excusable misreading of the specification, and the government does not have a duty to verify the... |
11/13/2000 | 00-5031, 00-5032 |
Results 1 to 10 of 17