Cases

594 F.Supp.2d 889 (2008) AFG INDUSTRIES, INC., and Asahi Glass Company, Ltd. v. CARDINAL IG COMPANY, INC. and Andersen Windows, Inc. No. 2:96-CV-244. United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Greeneville. December 19, 2008. Andrew M. Ollis, Richard D. Kelly, Stephen G. Baxter, Obion, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, PC, Alexandria, VA, Christopher F.

ORDER The parties having so agreed, it is ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).

ORDER The parties having so agreed, it is ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).

RADER, Circuit Judge. On ■\ summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee ruled that Cardinal IG Co. (Cardinal) did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 4,859,532. AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., No. 2:96-CV-244 (E.D.Tenn. Oct. 1, 2002). Because the district court erred in granting summary judgment of noninfringement, this court vacates and remands. I.</

MICHEL, Circuit Judge. This is a patent infringement ease. AFG Industries, Inc. and Asahi Glass Co. (collectively, “AFG”) appeal from the February 25, 2000 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granting summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Cardinal IG Company, Inc. (“Cardinal”). On March 23, 2000, AFG filed a timely notice o

332 F.3d 1125 Roger O'SHAUGHNESSY, as Tax Matters Person for Cardinal IG Company, Appellee,v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellant.Roger O'Shaughnessy, as Tax Matters Person for Cardinal IG Company, Appellant,v.Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee. No. 02-1532. No. 02-1603. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

*1118MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on the issue of patent claim construction pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). BACKGROUND This liti

Memorandum and Order BARBARA S. JONES, District Judge. Plaintiffs Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., and Yeda Research and Development Co. Ltd. (collectively, “Teva”) filed suit for patent infringement and declaratory judgment against Defendants Sandoz Inc., Sandoz International GmbH, Novartis AG, and Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collect

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 21-1570C (Filed Under Seal: March 28, 2022) (Reissued for Publication: April 5, 2022) ) IAP WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.

508 F.Supp.2d 837 (2007) MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. NESSCAP, INC., and Nesscap Co., Ltd., Defendants. Civil No. 06cv2311 JAH (BLM). United States District Court, S.D. California. August 27, 2007. *838 *839 David C. Doyle, Brian M. Kramer, Eric Martin Acker, Katherine Lind Parker

512 F.3d 1338 (2008) BALDWIN GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIEBERT, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 2007-4262. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. January 15, 2008. *1339 Thomas B. Kenworthy, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was

LINN, Circuit Judge. On cross-motions for summary judgment the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey determined that Envirochem, Inc.’s (“Envirochem”) product line literally infringed claim 1 of Ecolab, Inc.’s (“Ecolab”) United States Reissue Patent No. 32,818 (the “'818 patent”). Ecolab, Inc. v. Amerikem Labs., Inc., 98 F.Supp.2d 569

348 F.Supp.2d 713 (2004) ORTHO-McNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, LLC, and Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Plaintiffs, v. MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 1:02CV32. United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia. December 23, 2004.

288 F.Supp.2d 562 (2003) BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY and E.R. Squibb & Sons, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant. No. 01 Civ.5572(SHS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 27, 2003. *563 *564 *565 Pasquale A.

157 F.Supp.2d 833 (2001) ROSENBLUTH INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. TRAVEL ANALYTICS, INC., Defendant. No. 1:00 CV 0738. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. July 27, 2001. *834 Bruce O. Baumgartner, Thomas H. Shunk, Wade A. Mitchell, Baker & Hostetler, Cleveland, OH, Joel Goldhammer, Akin, Gump, Stra

501 F.Supp.2d 1042 (2007) POLYVISION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. SMART TECHNOLOGIES INC. and Smart Technologies Corporation, Defendants. Smart Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff, v. PolyVision Corporation and Paragram Sales Company, Inc., Defendants. Nos. 1:03-CV-476, 1:04-CV-713. United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division. June 1, 2007.

RADER, Circuit Judge. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 4,786,505 (’505 patent) and 4,853,230 (’230 patent) are not invalid and are infringed by Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Andrx), Genpharm Inc. (Genpharm), and by Cheminor Drugs, Ltd., Reddy-Cheminor, Inc., and Schein Pharmaceutical, Inc. (collectively, Cheminor). Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharm.

453 F.Supp.2d 1030 (2006) ZIMMER TECHNOLOGY, INC. and Zimmer, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., Defendant. No. 3:02-CV-425. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division. September 28, 2006. *1031 *1032 *1033 Bryan S. Hales P

275 F.Supp.2d 1236 (2003) INTEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ALTIMA COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendant. No. CV S-99-2488 GEB/GGH. United States District Court, E.D. California. May 20, 2003. *1237 *1238 *1239 Richard Pachter, Stevens and O'Connell, Sacramento, CA

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION WILLIAMS, Judge. This post-award bid protest comes before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the administrative record (AR) and on Plaintiffs motion for a permanent injunction against continued performance of a contract for trash pick-up services.2 This Court denied Plaintiffs motion for