§Why CasetextPricing

TechRadium, Inc. v. AtHoc, Inc. et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

14 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,134 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"

  2. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 115,098 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

  3. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,426 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  4. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc.

    138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,576 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction was purely a matter of law and therefore subject to de novo review

  5. Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 354 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

  6. Muniauction v. Thomson Corp.

    532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 246 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding it obvious to “apply the use of the Internet to existing electronic processes at a time when doing so was commonplace.”

  7. Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A

    868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 388 times
    Holding that the phrase "[a]n optical waveguide" in the preamble of the claim language was meant to limit claim scope to "optical waveguides" rather than all optical fibers because the "specification [made it] clear that the inventors were working on the particular problem of an . . . optical communication system not on general improvements in conventional optical fibers"

  8. Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.

    550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 209 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party that sells or offers to sell software containing instructions to perform the patented method does not infringe the patent under § 271

  9. On Demand Machine v. Ingram Industries

    442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 190 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "providing means for a customer to visually review" nested in a method claim was a means-plus-function term

  10. Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Laboratories

    271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 199 times
    Finding that it is the patentee's obligation to present a detailed basis of its evidence such that the district court can evaluate whether it supports a finding of infringement

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 335,322 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit