United States Federal Circuit - July 2001 Opinion Summaries

IN RE SAVE VENICE NEW YORK, INC.

Intellectual Property, Trademark
A declaration from the executive director of the trademark applicant, asserting that she knew from personal experience that none of the applicant's...

WOODMAN v. OFFICE OF PERS. MGMT.

Government Benefits
Where a person abandons a career as a civilian for a career in the military by actively seeking service extensions to the point where he is eligible...

BESTFOODS v. US

International Trade
19 CFR 102.13(b), withholding de minimis treatment under the federal marking statute from most agricultural products, is a valid exercise of...

THE DOW CHEM. CO. v. SUMITOMO CHEM. CO., LTD.

Intellectual Property, Patent
Where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ordinary meaning of a term, claim construction requires that the court search the...

PANNU v STORZ INSTRUMENTS, INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
Where a reissued patent improperly broadened claims in a manner directly pertinent to subject matter surrendered during prosecution, it is invalid...

IN RE ROEMER

Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent
Where only party to an interference proceeding has appealed the designation of unpatentable, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences cannot...

YANCO v. US

Government Benefits
The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, 42 USC 3796-3796c, does not apply where the covered officer committed suicide because that is not a...

LANDMARK LAND CO., INC. v. FED. DEPOSIT INS. CORP.

Banking Law, Contracts, Remedies
Determining the amount of government restitution using the value of the benefits received by the government due to the plaintiff's performance is an...

GLASS v. US

Contracts
Intent of the parties to the contract is not sufficient to make them third party beneficiaries because in order to prove third party beneficiary...

AM. FED'N OF GOV'T EMPLOYEES v US

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure
Neither individual government employees nor their representative unions have standing under 28 USC 1491(b)(1) to challenge a cost comparison decision...