§Why CasetextPricing

Broadcom Corporation v. Emulex Corporation

MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW

29 Cited authorities

  1. Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,988 times   136 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

  2. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,553 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"

  3. Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Limited Partnership

    564 U.S. 91 (2011)   Cited 1,183 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 282 ’s presumption of validity in litigation imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard on defendants seeking to prove invalidity

  4. In re Seagate Technology

    497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 803 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement

  5. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.

    471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 525 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the record supported jury verdict of no induced infringement where it showed defendant contacted an Australian attorney and "obtained letters from U.S. patent counsel advising that [its product] did not infringe"

  6. Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc.

    56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 661 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to be an exclusive licensee a party may rely on either an express or implied promise of exclusivity

  7. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.

    377 U.S. 476 (1964)   Cited 415 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) "require a showing that the alleged contributory infringer knew that the combination for which his component was especially designed was both patented and infringing"

  8. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S

    108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 348 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding a preliminary injunction should not issue if defendant raises a substantial question as to validity, enforceability, or infringement

  9. Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls v. Mega Systems, LLC

    350 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 279 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "inequitable conduct, while a broader concept than fraud, must be pled with particularity"

  10. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm

    543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 206 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the specification as a whole may serve to limit the claims by repeatedly characterizing the invention in a specific manner

  11. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,377 times   1047 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,180 times   1084 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  13. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,135 times   481 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  14. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,007 times   1007 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  15. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,953 times   142 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  16. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,128 times   198 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"