§Why CasetextPricing

Network Caching Technology,LLC v. Inktomi Corporation et al

Memorandum in Opposition re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Claims 1,2 and 3 of the '234 Patent

46 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 237,021 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  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. 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)."

  4. Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency

    261 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,790 times
    Holding that "conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data are insufficient to defeat summary judgment motion"

  5. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni

    158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,698 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there must be a claim term in need of clarification in order to draw in statements from the written description

  6. Clicks Billiards Inc. v. Sixshooters Inc.

    251 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 703 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the appearance of a pool hall can be trade dress, and noting that functionality, secondary meaning, and likelihood of confusion are issues of fact

  7. SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp.

    775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 979 times
    Holding district court erroneously relied on specification in reading limitations from other claims into the disputed claims

  8. United States v. Adams

    383 U.S. 39 (1966)   Cited 478 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to ignore long-accepted factors in the field of wet batters to arrive at the claimed invention

  9. Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.

    274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 453 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the claim term "portion" may be interpreted to encompass both "separate" or "integral"

  10. Bell Communications v. Vitalink Communications

    55 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 414 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that part-time infringement is nonetheless infringement

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 329,902 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,822 times   260 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  13. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,287 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

  14. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 593 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  15. Section 119 - Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority

    35 U.S.C. § 119   Cited 269 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Governing claiming priority to an earlier-filed provisional application

  16. Section 210 - Precedence of chapter

    35 U.S.C. § 210   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) This chapter shall take precedence over any other Act which would require a disposition of rights in subject inventions of small business firms or nonprofit organizations contractors in a manner that is inconsistent with this chapter, including but not necessarily limited to the following: (1) section 10(a) of the Act of June 29, 1935, as added by title I of the Act of August 14, 1946 ( 7 U.S.C. 427i(a); 60 Stat. 1085); 1 (2) section 205(a) of the Act of August 14, 1946 ( 7 U.S.C. 1624(a); 60