§Why CasetextPricing

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE

16 Cited authorities

  1. Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Limited Partnership

    564 U.S. 91 (2011)   Cited 1,157 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 282 ’s presumption of validity in litigation imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard on defendants seeking to prove invalidity

  2. I4I Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.

    598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 642 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party's quarrel with the facts the damages expert used go to the weight, not admissibility, of the expert's opinion

  3. NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.

    418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 459 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that users of accused system could not infringe method claims in the United States because one step of the method was performed in Canada

  4. Bell v. Clackamas County

    341 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 329 times
    Holding that it was an abuse of discretion to apply market rates in effect more than two years before the work was performed

  5. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.

    550 U.S. 437 (2007)   Cited 49 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Windows "software, uncoupled from a medium" was not a "combinable component" and that "a copy of Windows, not Windows in the abstract, qualifies as a 'component' under § 271(f)."

  6. Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co.

    727 F.2d 1506 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "neither error nor dangerous to justice to submit legal issues to juries"

  7. Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.

    837 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Octane Fitness's totality of the circumstances test, "it does not necessarily follow" from a willfulness determination "that the case is exceptional"

  8. Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. v. Shaw Environmental, Inc.

    477 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 29 times
    Rejecting notion that § 1498 imposes a "primary purpose" condition

  9. CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc.

    528 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007)   Cited 14 times
    In CNET Networks, the patent concerned claimed methods and systems for automatically creating an electronic catalog of product information gathered from various internet websites.

  10. Card-Monroe Corp. v. Tuftco Corp.

    270 F. Supp. 3d 967 (E.D. Tenn. 2017)   Cited 5 times
    Finding the defendant provided "evidence that raises a material question of fact as to infringement of at least six of the Accused Products," and thus, summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff was inappropriate because none of the cases cited by the plaintiff stood "for the proposition that summary judgment of induced infringement may be granted on circumstantial evidence alone"

  11. Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 50   Cited 13,642 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"

  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,055 times   1055 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  13. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,081 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"

  14. 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