§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 1,557 times   185 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 522 times   60 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 4,943 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 384 times   67 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 273 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 296 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 295 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 325 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 111 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. Koito Manufacturing Co., v. Turn-Key-Tech

    381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 143 times
    Holding that a challenger failed to meet its burden of proving a prior art reference anticipated the patent claims when it "failed to provide any testimony or other evidence that would demonstrate to the jury how that reference met the limitations of the claims"

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59   Cited 45,026 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 52   Cited 26,899 times   103 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 13,921 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"