§Why CasetextPricing

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

MEMORANDUM

12 Cited authorities

  1. D'Amelia v. Doe

    520 U.S. 1115 (1997)   Cited 74 times
    Affirming district court's dismissal of discrimination where court referenced EEOC charge letter without converting motion to dismiss into motion for summary judgment

  2. Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc.

    86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 212 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[c]ompliance with section 287 is a question of fact"

  3. Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Med. Eng'g Corp.

    6 F.3d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 193 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 287 precludes recovery of damages "for infringement from any time prior to compliance with the marking or actual notice requirements of the statute"

  4. City of Aurora ex rel. Aurora Water v. PS Systems, Inc.

    720 F. Supp. 2d 1243 (D. Colo. 2010)   Cited 17 times

    Civil Action No. 07-cv-02371-PAB-BNB. June 25, 2010. Martha Fitzgerald Bauer, Ashley Krause, Ericka F. Houck Englert, Ronald C. Gorsche, Jr., Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Denver, CO, Charles H. Richardson, Aurora City Attorney's Office, Aurora, CO, for I'laintiff and Counterclaim Defendant. Peter Attila Gergely, Merchant Gould, PC, Denver, CO, for Defendants, Counter-claimants, and Third-Party Plaintiffs. ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This patent case comes before the Court on

  5. Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.

    830 F. Supp. 2d 815 (N.D. Cal. 2011)   Cited 11 times
    Granting summary judgment of no inequitable conduct where the evidence was “insufficient to require a finding of deceitful intent” because the plaintiff “provide[d] evidence which permits the reasonable inference” that the patent applicant acted in good faith

  6. Mosel Vitelic Corp. v. Micron Technology, Inc.

    162 F. Supp. 2d 307 (D. Del. 2000)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the only time that the notice provisions of the federal statute do not come into play is when the patent is directed to only a method or process"

  7. Philips Electronics North America Corporation v. Contec Corp.

    312 F. Supp. 2d 649 (D. Del. 2004)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that the plaintiff's letter to the defendant enclosing a copy of the patents-in-suit and requesting a meeting "'to discuss these patents and our license terms'" did not provide actual notice of infringement, because it did not provide a specific charge of infringement by a specific accused product or device

  8. Merck Co., Inc. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc.

    434 F. Supp. 2d 257 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 05 Civ. 3650(DC), 05 Civ. 3696(DC), 05 Civ. 3698(DC), 05 Civ. 3699(DC), 05 Civ. 3700(DC), 05 Civ. 3701(DC). June 14, 2006. Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper Scinto by Robert L. Baechtold, Pasquale A. Razzano, Nina Shreve, Peter Shapiro, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. R. Kunstadt, P.C. by Robert M. Kunstadt, Ilaria Maggioni, New York, NY, for Defendants MediPlan Health Consulting, Inc., North Pharmacy Inc., PPI Pivotal Partners Inc., and Universal Drug Store Ltd. Darby Darby P.C. by Andrew Baum, David

  9. IPPV Enterprises, LLC v. Echostar Communications Corp.

    191 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Del. 2002)   Cited 4 times

    Civil Action No. 99-577-RRM March 27, 2002 James D. Heisman, Esquire, Connolly, Bove, Lodge Hutz LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Frederick G. Michaud, Jr., Esquire, Samuel C. Miller, III, Esquire, David M. Schlitz, Esquire, Lloyd S. Smith, Esquire, and Mark R. Kresloff, Esquire, Burns, Doane, Swecker Mathis, L.L.P., Alexandria, Virginia; for plaintiffs. Donald F. Parsons, Jr., Esquire and Rodger D. Smith, Esquire, Morris, Nichols, Arsht Tunnell, Wilmington, Delaware; Philip L. Cohan, Esquire, John C.

  10. INFIGEN, INC. v. ADVANCED CELL TECHNOLOGY, INC.

    65 F. Supp. 2d 967 (W.D. Wis. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    No. 98-C-0431-C. June 24, 1999. As Amended July 12, 1999. Douglas E. Olson, Richard J. Warburg, F.T. Alexandria Mahaney and Brad J. Duft, Lyon Lyon, La Jolla, CA, J. Donald Best and John C. Scheller, Michael, Best Friedrich, Madison, WI, for Infigen, Inc., plaintiff. Donald K. Schott, Quarles Brady, Madison, WI, for Advanced Cell Technology, Inc., defendant. Michael P. Erhard, Reinhart, Borner, Van Deuren, Norris Rieselbach, Madison, WI, for Steven L. Stice, defendant. Daniel J. Furniss, Townsend

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,480 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  12. Section 287 - Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice

    35 U.S.C. § 287   Cited 768 times   93 Legal Analyses
    Limiting liability of medical practitioners for performance of certain medical and surgical procedures