§Why CasetextPricing

Nilssen, et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, et al

MEMORANDUM

54 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 27,840 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

  2. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 16,020 times   502 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

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

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,795 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

  4. National Cable Telecom. Assn. v. Brand X Internet S

    545 U.S. 967 (2005)   Cited 1,175 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agency is free within "the limits of reasoned interpretation to change course" only if it "adequately justifies the change"

  5. Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A.

    544 U.S. 528 (2005)   Cited 1,158 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a substantive due process inquiry has "no proper place" in Takings doctrine, while distinguishing Nollan and Dolan as a special application of unconstitutional conditions doctrine for Takings

  6. United States v. Bajakajian

    524 U.S. 321 (1998)   Cited 1,359 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that forfeiture 70 times the Guidelines maximum and greater than the statutory maximum would be unconstitutionally excessive

  7. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.

    527 U.S. 308 (1999)   Cited 777 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that preliminary injunctive relief freezing defendants' assets was not warranted because injunctive relief was historically unavailable where plaintiff sought only money damages for breach of contract

  8. Long Island Care at Home v. Coke

    551 U.S. 158 (2007)   Cited 332 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding authorization for Secretary of Labor to "prescribe necessary rules, regulations, and orders" provided the Department of Labor "with the power to fill [explicit statutory] gaps"

  9. Walker, Inc. v. Food Machinery

    382 U.S. 172 (1965)   Cited 876 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there may be a violation of the Sherman Act when a patent is procured by fraud, but recognizing that a patent is an exception to the general rule against monopolies

  10. Milwaukee v. Illinois

    451 U.S. 304 (1981)   Cited 446 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that amendments to the Clean Water Act displaced the nuisance claim recognized in Milwaukee I

  11. Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60   Cited 53,581 times   146 Legal Analyses
    Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

  12. Section 1001 - Statements or entries generally

    18 U.S.C. § 1001   Cited 7,333 times   300 Legal Analyses
    Making false statements

  13. Section 288 - Action for infringement of a patent containing an invalid claim

    35 U.S.C. § 288   Cited 50 times

    Whenever a claim of a patent is invalid, an action may be maintained for the infringement of a claim of the patent which may be valid. The patentee shall recover no costs unless a disclaimer of the invalid claim has been entered at the Patent and Trademark Office before the commencement of the suit. 35 U.S.C. § 288 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 813; Pub. L. 93-596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; Pub. L. 112-29, §20(h), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 334. HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTESBased on Title

  14. Section 1.56 - Duty to disclose information material to patentability

    37 C.F.R. § 1.56   Cited 848 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Adopting broad standard of materiality requiring that information not be cumulative

  15. Section 11.18 - Signature and certificate for correspondence filed in the Office

    37 C.F.R. § 11.18   Cited 14 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth requirements for signing and filing documents with the PTO, and warning penalties for violating the same