16 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 187,141 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there cannot be a genuine issue of material fact where the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of an essential element
  2. Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.

    594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 247 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of royalty rates from licenses without a relationship to the claimed invention could not form the basis of a reasonable royalty calculation
  3. Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems

    308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 238 times
    Holding that the preambles at issue — "point of origin," "angle of rotation," and "scale" — did not limit the scope of the digitizer invention but simply described features that necessarily exit in any coordinate system for a digitizer
  4. B. B. Naturverpackungen v. Biocorp

    249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 131 times
    Holding that district court properly admitted competing scientific testimony and stating that "it would contravene fundamental principles of due and fair process to withhold evidence of disparate scientific opinion relevant to the findings—in this case of infringement vel non—required of the jury
  5. Typeright Keyboard v. Microsoft Corp.

    374 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 94 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in some circumstances, summary judgment may be inappropriate when the credibility of an affiant is drawn into question
  6. Aero Products v. Intex Recreation

    466 F.3d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that plaintiff who prevailed on patent infringement and Lanham Act claims arising from same operative facts, i.e., infringement of patent, could not have double recovery of damages
  7. SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc.

    511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 45 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that paper on FTP website, while publicly available, was not publicly accessible because it was “not catalogued or indexed in a meaningful way”
  8. Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.

    533 F. Supp. 2d 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)   Cited 14 times
    Finding that indirect infringement can be proven by circumstantial evidence such as dissemination of instructions
  9. Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.

    Case No. 14-cv-01197-WHO (N.D. Cal. May. 24, 2016)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the use of a "previously undisclosed reference to be used as background material" as long as the reference is "not asserted as [an] invalidating prior art reference"
  10. Rubin ex rel. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Vista Del Sol Health Servs., Inc.

    80 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (C.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 4 times

    Case No. CV 14–09534 MMM FFMx. 01-21-2015 Mori RUBIN, regional director of Region 31 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. VISTA DEL SOL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Vista Del Sol Healthcare, Respondent. Brian Dean Gee, Joanna F. Silverman, Simone Pang Gancayco, National Labor Relations Board, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner. Yolanda Flores–Burt, Yolanda Flores–Burt Law Offices, Santa Ana, CA, for Respondent. MARGARET M. MORROW

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 278,124 times   115 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 16,039 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
  13. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 15,108 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Noting that service by mail is complete when the document is mailed
  14. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,593 times   116 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents