§Why CasetextPricing

Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker, Inc. et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity

36 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 243,535 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 222,599 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. Scimed Life Sys. v. Adv. Cardiovascular

    242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 869 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that description of "present invention" in specification is limiting on claim

  4. Halliburton Energy v. M-I LLC

    514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 456 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is "indefinite if a [claim] term does not have proper antecedent basis"

  5. Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.

    247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 339 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conclusory statements offered by experts are not evidence

  6. IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 266 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims at issue as indefinite because they simultaneously claimed an apparatus and method steps

  7. ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co.

    501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 242 times
    Holding that the patent owner must show actual infringement, rather than just the capability to infringe

  8. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc.

    3 F.3d 404 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 344 times
    Finding that "[a]s the party moving for attorney fees, the burden was on [the prevailing party] to prove the exceptional nature of the case by clear and convincing evidence"

  9. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.

    107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 305 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features" and that if "one of the intervening applications does not describe" the subject matter, the later application cannot claim the benefit of the earlier application

  10. Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut International

    316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 244 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the term "vivid color appearance" not indefinite when the specification presented a formula for calculating the differential effect for a number of examples, which determined whether or not they had a "vivid colored appearance"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 339,516 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,412 times   1063 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