§Why CasetextPricing

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

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, a New Trial re the Fleming '759 and Day '356 Patents LUCENT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MICROSOFT'S COMBINED MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL, OR REMITTITUR

81 Cited authorities

  1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,067 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

  2. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,517 times   168 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. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.

    545 U.S. 913 (2005)   Cited 784 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”

  4. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 5,120 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)."

  5. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,152 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  6. Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine

    395 U.S. 100 (1969)   Cited 2,442 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court erred when it enjoined a nonparty that was never determined to be in active concert with a defendant

  7. Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix

    308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 761 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an alleged prior user's testimony for lack of corroboration when the only contemporaneous corroborating evidence offered was an unissued patent application

  8. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.

    471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 516 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"

  9. Lalonde v. County of Riverside

    204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 518 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that subjecting an arrestee to prolonged exposure to pepper spray constituted excessive force

  10. Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 347 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement

  11. Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 50   Cited 13,590 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"

  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,031 times   1045 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  13. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,933 times   941 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  14. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,071 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"