§Why CasetextPricing

Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al v. Gateway, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTION OF FACTS AND LAW

199 Cited authorities

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

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,823 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

  2. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,366 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  3. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,523 times   180 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"

  4. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical

    520 U.S. 17 (1997)   Cited 1,700 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis"

  5. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA

    317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 4,226 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims

  6. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 5,137 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor testimony as to "[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the prosecution history)."

  7. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,157 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  8. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp.

    299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,445 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a patentee may define a claim term by implication, through the term's consistent use throughout the specification

  9. General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.

    461 U.S. 648 (1983)   Cited 527 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that some circumstances, such as a patentee's undue delay in prosecuting the lawsuit, may justify limiting or withholding prejudgment interest but noting that "prejudgment interest should be awarded under § 284 absent some justification for withholding such an award"

  10. Colorado v. New Mexico

    467 U.S. 310 (1984)   Cited 475 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party with burden of persuasion may prevail only if he can “place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of [his] factual contentions are ‘highly probable.’ ”

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 95,908 times   660 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Section 2201 - Creation of remedy

    28 U.S.C. § 2201   Cited 24,636 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

  13. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,923 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  14. Section 1961 - Interest

    28 U.S.C. § 1961   Cited 11,486 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 6621 applies to internal revenue tax cases

  15. Rule 25 - Substitution of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 25   Cited 10,795 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities

  16. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,288 times   1030 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

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

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,065 times   461 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."

  18. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,064 times   1055 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  19. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,945 times   960 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  20. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,903 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents