§

Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha a/k/a Sharp Corporation v. Dell Inc.

No. 91154103 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2012)
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha a/k/a Sharp Corporation v. Dell Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,608 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. Lawlor v. Nat'l Screen Serv.

    349 U.S. 322 (1955)   Cited 889 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that two suits were not "based on the same cause of action," because "[t]he conduct presently complained of was all subsequent to" the prior judgment and it "cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist and which could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case"

  3. Foster v. Hallco Mfg. Co., Inc.

    947 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 183 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Lear v. Adkins ruling, which overrides certain contractual promises, does not override the claim-preclusive effect of a consent decree

  4. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply

  5. Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions, Inc.

    424 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating TTAB dismissal that was based on preclusive effect of district court infringement litigation

  6. Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.

    961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"

  7. Chromalloy American Corp. v. Kenneth Gordon

    736 F.2d 694 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that infringement litigation between different marks did not claim preclude later petition in opposition to registration

  8. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,116 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit