§Why CasetextPricing

Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories

REPLY to Response to Motion re Motion to Adopt Modified Trial Management Plan

20 Cited authorities

  1. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,462 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  2. Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

    574 U.S. 318 (2015)   Cited 1,300 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where no subsidiary factual dispute exists, appellate court reviews district court's construction of patent de novo

  3. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.

    572 U.S. 663 (2014)   Cited 530 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that laches is not a defense to damages for copyright infringement

  4. Tull v. United States

    481 U.S. 412 (1987)   Cited 1,030 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party had a right to trial by jury in civil claims brought by the government

  5. Teamsters v. Terry

    494 U.S. 558 (1990)   Cited 872 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, while plaintiffs' "claim include[d] both legal and equitable issues," their demand for a legal remedy meant they were entitled to a jury trial

  6. SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC

    137 S. Ct. 954 (2017)   Cited 216 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for patent infringement damages brought within the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year limitations period

  7. Gucci Am., Inc. v. Bank of China

    768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014)   Cited 365 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court has no general personal jurisdiction over a bank where it "has branch offices in the forum, but is incorporated and headquartered elsewhere"

  8. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc.

    137 S. Ct. 429 (2016)   Cited 58 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Upholding as definite the phrase "substantially centered"

  9. American Calcar v. American Honda Motor Co.

    651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 126 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the term "in response to" connotes that the second events occurs in reaction to the first event."

  10. Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 134 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the marking requirement, § 287, applies to design patents whether remedy for infringement is sought under § 284 or § 289"

  11. Section 289 - Additional remedy for infringement of design patent

    35 U.S.C. § 289   Cited 181 times   75 Legal Analyses
    In 35 U.S.C. § 289 infringement is defined as unauthorized manufacture or sale of "the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof".