§Why CasetextPricing

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated v. International Securities Exchange, LLC

MEMORANDUM

9 Cited authorities

  1. In re Seagate Technology

    497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 802 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

  2. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

    632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 425 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence relying on "25 percent rule of thumb," which was a tool used to approximate the reasonable royalty rate the manufacturer of patented product would be willing to offer to pay to the patentee during a hypothetical negotiation, was inadmissible under Daubert since it failed to tie a reasonably royalty base to facts of case at issue

  3. Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 262 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the first prong was not met when “the record developed in the infringement proceeding ..., show[ed] that the question of equivalence was a close one,” particularly in light of the intensely factual inquiry involved in the doctrine of equivalents analysis

  4. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.

    682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 168 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the objective prong under Seagate was ultimately a question of law for the court, but leaving the subjective prong as a question of fact for the jury

  5. Cohesive Tech. v. Waters Corp.

    543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 156 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding anticipation and obviousness are distinct inquiries

  6. Advanced Fiber Technologies (AFT) Trust v. J & L Fiber Services, Inc.

    674 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 58 times
    Finding that a court may construe a term found only in the construction, and not in the claims, if the correct construction of a claim term necessitates it

  7. Black v. Robert Bosch Tool

    260 F. App'x 284 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 36 times
    Rejecting the district court's reliance on the doctrine of claim differentiation because "the presumption of scope applied to the independent claims under the doctrine of claim differentiation here does not overcome the definition from the intrinsic record"

  8. OPTI INC. v. APPLE, INC.

    CASE NO. 2:07-CV-21-CE (E.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2009)   Cited 4 times
    Explaining that "strong, but unsuccessful noninfringement and invalidity defenses presented during litigation weigh against a finding of objective recklessness"

  9. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,068 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system