§Why CasetextPricing

Snyders Heart Valve LLC v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. et al

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

11 Cited authorities

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

    572 U.S. 663 (2014)   Cited 501 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that laches is not a defense to damages for copyright infringement

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

    137 S. Ct. 954 (2017)   Cited 204 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

  3. Precision Co. v. Automotive Co.

    324 U.S. 806 (1945)   Cited 1,062 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clean-hands doctrine "presupposes [a court of equity's] refusal ... to be the ‘abetter of iniquity’ " (quoting Bein v. Heath , 47 U.S. 228, 247, 6 How. 228, 12 L.Ed. 416 (1848) )

  4. Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Co.

    322 U.S. 238 (1944)   Cited 1,054 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts have the inherent power to grant relief against judgments for "after-discovered fraud"

  5. Keystone Co. v. Excavator Co.

    290 U.S. 240 (1933)   Cited 584 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an unconscionable act must have "immediate and necessary relation to the equity that he seeks"

  6. Wang Laboratories v. Mitsubishi Electronics

    103 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 153 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "entire course of conduct" is relevant to finding an implied patent license

  7. Meyers v. Asics Corp.

    974 F.2d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a suggestion of infringement coupled with an offer to license followed by silence [does not] suffice to establish equitable estoppel"

  8. SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag SCA Personal Care, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC

    807 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 32 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Adopting reasoning of panel concerning equitable estoppel

  9. Amgen Inc. v. International Trade Com'n

    565 F.3d 846 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that safe harbor requires consideration of the exempt status of "each study" for which the question - whether the study was reasonably related to development and submission of information under the FDCA where there is a question of fact - is raised

  10. Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp.

    Civil Action No. 6:11-CV-201-JRG-JDL (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Civil Action No. 6:11-CV-201-JRG-JDL 12-08-2017 EIDOS DISPLAY, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHI MEI INNOLUX CORPORATION AND CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA, INC. Defendants. RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Court held a jury trial in this matter from June 26-30, 2017. (Dkt. No. 873.) On June 29th, 2017, after both sides finished presenting evidence to the jury and before the Court submitted to the jury those issues proper for its consideration, the