§Why CasetextPricing

WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation

MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement

25 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 237,052 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. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 217,036 times   40 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"

  3. NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.

    418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 459 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that users of accused system could not infringe method claims in the United States because one step of the method was performed in Canada

  4. BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.

    498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 293 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an actor is liable for infringement under § 271 if it acts through an agent or contracts with another to perform one or more steps of a claimed method

  5. Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.

    6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 314 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that noninfringing acts may not be enjoined

  6. Wahpeton Canvas Co., Inc. v. Frontier, Inc.

    870 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 345 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement

  7. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.

    463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 201 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence that success was due to prior art features rebutted the presumption

  8. Epcon Gas Systems v. Bauer Compressors

    279 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 221 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an exceptional case may be shown by proof of "inequitable conduct before the PTO; litigation misconduct; vexatious, unjustified, and otherwise bad faith litigation; a frivolous suit or willful infringement."

  9. Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp.

    406 U.S. 518 (1972)   Cited 171 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that final assembly abroad of a patented device cannot be an infringing manufacture within the meaning of § 271

  10. Rotec Industries, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp.

    215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 182 times
    Holding that "extraterritorial activities, however, are irrelevant to the case before us, because the right conferred by a patent under our law is confined to the United States and its territories, and infringement of this right cannot be predicated on acts wholly done in a foreign country"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 329,940 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 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,245 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

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

  14. Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 762 times   259 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents

  15. Section 100 - Definitions

    35 U.S.C. § 100   Cited 613 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"

  16. Section 27 - Revival of applications; reinstatement of reexamination proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 27   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to revive an unintentionally abandoned application for patent, accept an unintentionally delayed payment of the fee for issuing each patent, or accept an unintentionally delayed response by the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, upon petition by the applicant for patent or patent owner. 35 U.S.C. § 27 Added Pub. L. 112-211, title II, §201(b)(1), Dec. 18, 2012, 126 Stat.