35 U.S.C. § 271(B)

18 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd.
  781 F.2d 861· Fed. Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 134×
  The court held that the '012 patent claims are not literally infringed, but infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires further fact-finding. The '400 patent's literal infringement also requires further fact-finding.
• AIR Prods. & Chems., Inc. v. Reichhold Chems., Inc.
  755 F.2d 1559· Fed. Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 38×
  A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a patent infringement suit if the complaint, on its face, states a claim arising under the patent laws, even if resolution of a contract dispute is necessary.
• Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc.
  927 F.2d 1565· Fed. Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that summary judgment of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct was improper without a finding of intent to deceive, and that the reissue patent claims were not invalid for an inadequate reason for reissue. Summary judgment on inadequate specification support
• Power Lift, Inc. v. Lang Tools, Inc.
  774 F.2d 478· Fed. Cir.· 1985-10-07 ·cited 16×
  A corporate officer can be held liable for inducing his corporation's patent infringement, and continuing production after notice of a patent constitutes willful infringement.
• Williamson-Dickie MFG. Co. v. Hortex
  504 F.2d 983· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the Mizell patent was invalid due to obviousness and affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees.
• Stukenborg v. Teledyne, Inc.
  441 F.2d 1069· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that even if claims 5-7 of the '408 patent cover only the clip, there was no infringement, and if they are combination claims, they are invalid for overclaiming.
• Thermal Techs., Inc. v. Dade Serv. Corp.
  282 F. Supp. 2d 1373· S.D. Fla.· 2003-08-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that transfer of venue to the Middle District of Florida was appropriate for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice.
• Smith v. Acme Gen. Corp.
  614 F.2d 1086· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the patent in suit was invalid for obviousness, affirming the district court's decision. The court also affirmed the denial of attorney's fees to the defendant.
• Koratron Co., Inc. v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
  418 F.2d 1314· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a plaintiff's complaint, by omitting patent infringement claims and pleading state law torts, can avoid the specific venue provisions for patent infringement actions, even if patent issues are implicated.
• Medtronic Xomed, Inc. v. Gyrus Ent LLC
  440 F. Supp. 2d 1300· M.D. Fla.· 2006-08-01 ·cited 6×
  The court denied summary judgment on claims of direct, contributory, and induced infringement, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendant's surgical instruments infringe the patent and whether the defendant induced infringement.
• Nissim Corp. v. Clearplay, Inc.
  351 F. Supp. 2d 1343· S.D. Fla.· 2004-10-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Lee Jarman's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied because the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the merits of the inducement of patent infringement claim, and discovery is ongoing.
• Harrell v. Florida Bar
  490 F. Supp. 2d 381· M.D. Fla.· 2011-09-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Florida Bar Rules prohibiting "quality of legal services" statements and "promises results" are not unconstitutionally vague, as they provide sufficient notice and enforcement standards for lawyers of ordinary intelligence.
• Acufloor, LLC v. Eventile, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-03-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was not a shotgun pleading and sufficiently stated claims for direct, induced, and contributory patent infringement, and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court also denied the co-defendant's motion to bifurcate and stay t
• Kirsch Research & Dev. LLC v. Intertape Polymer Corp
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-15
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state claims for direct and induced patent infringement at the motion to dismiss stage, denying the defendant's motion.
• Trove Brands, LLC v. JH Studios, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-07-15
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for patent infringement and was a shotgun pleading, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
• Billingnetwork.com, Inc. v. Cerner Physician Practice, Inc.
  509 F. Supp. 2d 1172· M.D. Fla.· 2007-03-21
  The court held that the accused system does not literally infringe Claim 1 of the '229 patent because it does not meet the 'browser-based subscriber' limitation, nor does it infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.
• Royal W. Sims & the R. W. Sims Tr. v. W. Steel Co.
  551 F.2d 811· 10th Cir.· 1977-03-25
  A settlement releasing a direct infringer without reserving rights against a contributory infringer or inducer releases the latter under Utah law, and a contract provision requiring the 'return' of documents only applies if those documents were previously delivered.