⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

6 opinions for “Williamson v. Rexam Beverage Company”

District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2007-06-18 · Published · cited 2× · 497 F. Supp. 2d 900; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44919; 2007 WL 1740000
497 F.Supp.2d 900 (2007) James T. WILLIAMSON and IP Technologies Holdings, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. REXAM BEVERAGE CAN COMPANY, Defendant. No. 3:06-cv-0225. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. June 18, 2007. *901 A. James Richardson, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, Indianapolis, IN, Daniel Jerome Gentry, Mary
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006-06-06 · Published · cited 1× · 434 F. Supp. 2d 500; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36360; 2006 WL 1624365
434 F.Supp.2d 500 (2006) Trevis REID, Plaintiff, v. REXAM BEVERAGE CAN COMPANY, Defendant. Nos. 3:05CV7183, 3:03CV7741. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division. June 6, 2006. *501 *502 Kollin L. Rice, Oregon, Oh, Angela Y. Russell, Toledo, OH, for Plaintiff. Kevin L. C
Merrell v. Smithpublic domain
North Carolina Business Court · 2022-12-13 · Published · cited 0× · 2022 NCBC 83
Merrell v. Smith, 2022 NCBC 83. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 19 CVS 21650 [MASTER FILE] Related Cases: CARL E. MERRELL; LYLE RANSON; 19 CVS 22027 JEANETTE RANSON; CRAIG S. 19 CVS 23665 MILLER; W
Merrell v. Smithpublic domain
North Carolina Business Court · 2023-01-11 · Published · cited 0× · 2023 NCBC 2
Merrell v. Smith, 2023 NCBC 2. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 19 CVS 21650 [MASTER FILE] Related Cases: CARL E. MERRELL; LYLE RANSON; 19 CVS 22027 JEANETTE RANSON; CRAIG S. 19 CVS 23665 MILLER; WANDA EDWARD
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017-04-17 · Published · cited 27× · 853 F.3d 1370; 122 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1301; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6502; 2017 WL 1370089
STOLL, Circuit Judge. A jury found that Samsung infringed Rembrandt’s asserted patents, which the jury also found not invalid over prior art cited by Samsung. The jury awarded Rembrandt $15.7 million in damages. After trial, Samsung moved for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness and damages, which the district court denied. Samsung appeals the district court’s denial of JM
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2008-12-24 · Published · cited 3× · 591 F. Supp. 2d 944; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104152; 2008 WL 5401495
(2008) MMK GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. The SHESHELLS COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendant. Case No. 3:07 CV 55. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division. December 24, 2008. JUDGMENT ENTRY KATZ, District Judge. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously with this entry, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUD