all - Opinion Summaries

BALLARD MED. PRODS. v. ALLEGIANCE HEALTHCARE CORP.

Intellectual Property, Patent
District courts considering patent cases are not required to conduct a detailed, limitation-by-limitation construction of each of the asserted claims,...

XEROX CORP. v. 3COM CORP.

Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Patent
Where the patent for single stroke symbols (used for improved computer recognition of human handwriting) relies upon both geometric shape and the...

BLISS SALON DAY SPA v. BLISS WORLD LLC

Intellectual Property, Trademark
Before getting a preliminary injunction against use of a trademark in a specified commercial region, a plaintiff must prove that its mark has acquired...

CAE, INC. v. CLEAN AIR ENG'G, INC.

Intellectual Property, Trademark
Even if the two parties to a trademark dispute do not provide substantially similar goods or services, a district court may find infringement as a...

DOW CHEMICAL CO. v ASTRO-VALCOUR, INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
The true inventor need not know that it was the inventor at the time it challenges the validity of a patent issued to someone else, as long as the...

PACKMAN v. CHICAGO TRIBUNE CO.

Intellectual Property, Trademark
A newspaper's reproduction of its headline, along with its masthead, on souvenir products is not a trademark use because the masthead identifies the...

BIO-TECH. GEN. CORP. v. GENENTECH, INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
When scientific certainty is not available, and the scientific theories and evidence are within a reasonable range of difference of scientific...

LIPSCHER v. LRP PUBL'NS INC.

Intellectual Property, False Advertising
Judgment as a matter of law on false advertising claims are appropriate where the statements are literally true and there is no evidence of confusion.

THE TORO CO. v. WHITE CONSOL. INDUS., INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
Even if a function is inherent in the unitary structure, if neither the patent specification nor the claim construction make the inherent function a...

EMI GROUP N. AM., INC. v. CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.

Intellectual Property, Patent
Where multiple claims each recite the same mechanism, all claims will be invalid for impossibility if the mechanism is shown to be inoperative.