§Why CasetextPricing

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. USA

RESPONSE to 118 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment The United States Does Not Enjoy a License under the '094 Patent

16 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 235,866 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Adickes v. Kress Co.

    398 U.S. 144 (1970)   Cited 25,014 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private person who conspires with government actors to deprive a plaintiff of her constitutional rights acts "under color of law" for purposes of § 1983

  3. Central v. Advanced

    482 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 153 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the "first element [of Superior Fireplace] poses a question of law, since the correct scope and meaning of a claim is an issue for the court to decide"

  4. Balt. Ohio R.R. v. United States

    261 U.S. 592 (1923)   Cited 169 times
    Holding that the terms of an implied-in-fact contract are inferred from the parties' conduct

  5. Alph C. Kaufman, Inc. v. Cornerstone Indus. Corp.

    540 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 9 times

    NO. 2014–CA–001790–MR 03-10-2017 ALPH C. KAUFMAN, INC., and Louis A. Kaufman, Appellants v. CORNERSTONE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Appellee BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS: Gary R. Adams, Daniel J. Canon, Louisville, Kentucky ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLANTS: Daniel J. Canon, Louisville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Michael M. Hirn, Anthony M. Zelli, Louisville, Kentucky ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLEE: Michael M. Hirn, Louisville, Kentucky ACREE, JUDGE. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS: Gary R. Adams, Daniel J. Canon, Louisville

  6. Madey v. Duke University

    413 F. Supp. 2d 601 (M.D.N.C. 2006)   Cited 16 times

    No. 1:97CV01170. January 31, 2006. James Lee Lester, Maccord Mason PLLC, Greensboro, NC, Randall M. Roden, Tharrington Smith, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff. John M. Simpson, Fulbright Jaworski, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION BEATY, District Judge. This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant's renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [Document #149], Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply [Document #175], and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Documents Under

  7. Campbell Plastics Engineering & Mfg., Inc. v. Brownlee

    389 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 7 times   5 Legal Analyses

    No. 03-1512. November 10, 2004. Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Kyriacos Tsircou, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Hampton LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary A. Clark. Domenique Kirchner, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; and Todd

  8. Technitrol, Inc. v. United States

    440 F.2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1971)   Cited 16 times

    No. 99-64. April 16, 1971. S.C. Yuter, New York City, attorney of record, for plaintiff. Laurence B. Dodds, Great Neck, N.Y., Paul Fields and James David Jacobs, New York City, of counsel. James D. Stokes, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. William D. Ruckelshaus, for defendant. Before COWEN, Chief Judge, and LARAMORE, DURFEE, DAVIS, COLLINS, SKELTON, and NICHOLS, Judges. OPINION DAVIS, Judge. This is a patent suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 in which plaintiff seeks "reasonable and

  9. Technical Dev. Corp. v. United States

    597 F.2d 733 (Fed. Cir. 1979)   Cited 8 times
    In Technical Development, the government contract called for the development of an electronic fuel control for an aircraft engine.

  10. Tayloe v. Riggs

    26 U.S. 591 (1828)   Cited 6 times

    JANUARY TERM, 1828. The rule of law is, that the best evidence must be given, of which the nature of the thing is capable; that is, that no evidence shall be received, which pre-supposes greater evidence behind in the party's possession or power. The withholding of that better evidence raises a presumption, that, if produced, it might not operate in favour of the party who is called upon for it. For this reason, a party who is in possession of an original paper, is not permitted to give a copy in

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,220 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1498 - Patent and copyright cases

    28 U.S.C. § 1498   Cited 506 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Granting the United States Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement suits against the federal government under a takings theory

  13. Section 200 - Policy and objective

    35 U.S.C. § 200   Cited 47 times   40 Legal Analyses

    It is the policy and objective of the Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development; to encourage maximum participation of small business firms in federally supported research and development efforts; to promote collaboration between commercial concerns and nonprofit organizations, including universities; to ensure that inventions made by nonprofit organizations and small business firms are used in a manner to promote

  14. Section 202 - Disposition of rights

    35 U.S.C. § 202   Cited 27 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Allowing agencies to grant such requests

  15. Section 201 - Definitions

    35 U.S.C. § 201   Cited 20 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Defining an "invention" to mean "any invention or discovery that is or may be patentable," and "subject invention" to mean "any invention of the contractor conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement"

  16. Section 401.14 - Standard patent rights clauses

    37 C.F.R. § 401.14   Cited 7 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the government may obtain title to the invention "[i]f the contractor fails to disclose or elect title to the subject invention"