§Why CasetextPricing

EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC

REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the basis of: Rules 50

27 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,517 times   168 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.

    136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016)   Cited 492 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 284 " ‘commits the determination’ whether enhanced damages are appropriate ‘to the discretion of the district court’ "

  3. School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.

    5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 4,763 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "overwhelming weight of authority is that the failure to file documents in an original motion or opposition does not turn the late filed documents into 'newly discovered evidence'" for a motion for reconsideration

  4. McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.

    837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 360 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding that using "unconventional rules that relate to sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea"

  5. OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 259 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Section 101 inquiry is a question of law

  6. National Metal Finishing v. Barclaysamerican

    899 F.2d 119 (1st Cir. 1990)   Cited 295 times
    Holding that motions for reconsideration may not be used "to repeat old arguments previously considered and rejected, or to raise new legal theories that should have been raised earlier"

  7. Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co.

    791 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1986)   Cited 291 times
    Holding that, under federal maritime law, "a court should not look beyond the written language of the contract to determine the intent of the parties unless the disputed language is ambiguous"

  8. Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc.

    641 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 302 times
    Holding that a Jones Act claim was "distinct and separable" from an unseaworthiness claim

  9. Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp. (Can.)

    803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 104 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that four methods of determining "slope of strain hardening coefficient" leading to different results rendered the claims invalid for indefiniteness

  10. Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson

    438 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 134 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant committed direct infringement in the instances that it assembled the components itself into the complete patented product, and that it committed indirect infringement when it provided the components to its customers along with directions as to how to assemble them into the patented product

  11. Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59   Cited 43,332 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"

  12. Rule 52 - Findings and Conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 52   Cited 26,367 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that a "reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility"

  13. 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 13,588 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"