Declaratory Judgment Of Non-Infringement

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

• Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.
  713 F.2d 1530· Fed. Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 170×
  The court held that patent claims for composite PTFE tubing were invalid as obvious and not infringed, as the prior art suggested the combination of materials and structure.
• Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Admiral Corp.
  183 F.2d 953· 7th Cir.· 1950-07-21 ·cited 62×
  The court held that patent claims are factual issues subject to the 'clearly erroneous' standard of review and that the trial court's findings of validity and infringement were supported by substantial evidence.
• Avia Grp. Int'l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal., Inc.
  853 F.2d 1557· Fed. Cir.· 1988-07-29 ·cited 51×
  The court held that summary judgment for patent validity, infringement, and willfulness was appropriate, affirming the district court's decision.
• Rains v. Cascade Indus., Inc.
  402 F.2d 241· 3d Cir.· 1968-10-14 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the patent was invalid and not infringed, affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Int'l Harvester Co. v. Deere & Co.
  623 F.2d 1207· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 45×
  The court concurred in the result but would have preferred to rely on different grounds, emphasizing the need for certainty in marketing new products.
• Helene Curtis Indus., Inc. v. Layden
  233 F.2d 148· 2d Cir.· 1956-04-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the patent was invalid for lack of patentable invention over the prior art, and that certain limitations were not critical. The court also affirmed the lower court's finding that the patentee had not proven an earlier invention date.
• Windsurfing Int'l, Inc. v. AMF
  782 F.2d 995· Fed. Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the patent claims were valid and infringed, but reversed the finding of patent misuse. It affirmed injunctions against some infringers but remanded for reconsideration of an injunction against another.
• Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Duphar Int'l Research B.V.
  738 F.2d 1237· Fed. Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while the magistrate misstated the doctrine of file history estoppel, this error did not necessarily invalidate the attorney fee award, which could be based on other grounds. The case is remanded for further clarification.
• Wembley, Inc. v. Superba Cravats, Inc.
  315 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1963-03-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the complaint was insufficient to establish a justiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act due to a lack of clear statement regarding the intention to manufacture.
• The Barr Rubber Prods. Co. v. The SUN Rubber Co.
  425 F.2d 1114· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-30 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court's finding of perjury was clearly erroneous and influenced its other rulings, requiring reversal and remand for reconsideration of patent validity. The denial of the motion to join additional parties was affirmed.
• Press Mach. Corp. v. Smith R.P.M. Corp.
  727 F.2d 781· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the settlement agreement, when interpreted under Missouri contract law considering surrounding circumstances, granted PMC a limited license under Smith's subsequently issued patent, and the agreement was not ambiguous.
• Grafon Corp. v. Hausermann
  602 F.2d 781· 7th Cir.· 1979-07-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff submitted sufficient proof of an actual, justiciable controversy regarding patent validity, establishing subject matter jurisdiction.
• Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc.
  827 F.2d 1524· Fed. Cir.· 1987-08-17 ·cited 29×
• Mach. Corp. OF Am. v. Gullfiber AB
  774 F.2d 467· Fed. Cir.· 1985-10-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in determining the case was exceptional for awarding attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and that a mere failure to obtain outside counsel's opinion before asserting infringement does not automatically make
• A.B. Dick Co. v. Burroughs Corp.
  713 F.2d 700· Fed. Cir.· 1983-07-27 ·cited 28×
  The trial court erred in granting summary judgment by misconstruing a prior ruling on the scope of a patent.
• Speed Prods. Co., Inc. v. Tinnerman Prods., Inc.
  171 F.2d 727· D.C. Cir.· 1948-05-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the District of Columbia court improperly enjoined the New York action because the New York action was filed first between the parties.
• Technicon Instruments Corp. v. Coleman Instruments Corp. & Am. Hosp. Supply Corp.
  385 F.2d 391· 7th Cir.· 1967-10-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court correctly determined that the 'Air Bubble claim' (Claim 16 of the '141 patent) is valid and infringed, and that other claims of both patents are also valid and infringed.
• Remington Prods. Corp. v. Am. Aerovap, Inc.
  192 F.2d 872· 2d Cir.· 1951-12-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying summary judgment and issuing an injunction, nor in denying other requested relief.
• Sutherland Paper Co. v. Grant Paper BOX Co.
  183 F.2d 926· 3d Cir.· 1950-08-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance, necessitating a new trial, and that the patent's claim construction required further analysis in light of the prior art.
• Boldstar Tech., LLC v. Home Depot, Inc.
  517 F. Supp. 2d 1283· S.D. Fla.· 2007-10-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a tortious interference claim requires a business relationship that likely would have been completed but for the interference, and that a fraud claim based on a broken promise for future sale of goods is barred by the statute of frauds.
• G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
  873 F.2d 985· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the initials 'LA' are merely descriptive for low alcohol beer and have not acquired secondary meaning, thus not being protectible as a trademark. The court also affirmed the district court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over Miller's declaratory jud
• Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.
  868 F.2d 1251· Fed. Cir.· 1989-02-22 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the '915 patent claims were not anticipated by prior art and that Sumitomo's S-3 fibers infringed those claims under the doctrine of equivalents.
• Carella v. Starlight Archery & PRO Line Co.
  804 F.2d 135· Fed. Cir.· 1986-10-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the '800 patent was infringed and not invalid, affirming the district court's judgment and award of lost profits.
• Cummings v. Moore
  202 F.2d 145· 10th Cir.· 1953-02-04 ·cited 22×
  A patent issued to someone who is not the original inventor is void and cannot be infringed, and a federal court has jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking such a declaration.
• The Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz
  509 F.2d 730· 4th Cir.· 1974-10-18 ·cited 21×
  Opinion work product material developed in prior litigation is immune from discovery in subsequent litigation, even after the prior litigation has terminated.
• Broadview Chem. Corp. v. Loctite Corp.
  474 F.2d 1391· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment of non-infringement, finding no error in its refusal to specify the reasons for non-infringement or to declare the patents invalid.
• Mattel, Inc. v. Louis Marx & Co., Inc.
  353 F.2d 421· 2d Cir.· 1965-12-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the first-filed action should generally proceed unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, and the New York court erred in staying the New Jersey action.
• Measurements Corp. v. Ferris Instrument Corp.
  159 F.2d 590· 3d Cir.· 1947-02-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Ferris patent was invalid due to anticipation and lack of patentable invention, and that federal courts lack jurisdiction to determine title to a patent when that is the primary issue.
• Perini Am., Inc. v. Paper Converting Mach. Co.
  832 F.2d 581· Fed. Cir.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that Perini's machine did not infringe PCM's patents and did not abuse its discretion in denying Perini's request for attorney fees.
• Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp.
  776 F.2d 309· Fed. Cir.· 1985-11-01 ·cited 18×
  While the practice of adopting proposed findings verbatim is criticized, it does not render the clearly erroneous standard of review inapplicable.
• Am. Needle & Novelty Co. v. Schuessler Knitting Mills, Inc.
  379 F.2d 376· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a patent owner's investigation into possible infringement does not constitute a charge of infringement sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, absent a reasonable apprehension of liability.
• N. Star ICE Equip. Co. v. Akshun Mfg. Co.
  301 F.2d 882· 7th Cir.· 1962-03-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that North Star's ice-removal knives did not infringe the Lees patent because they lacked the essential scoring and groove-forming element, and affirmed the patent's validity. The court also affirmed the invalidity of the second patent and reversed the finding of i
• Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc.
  187 F.2d 52· 3d Cir.· 1951-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the agreement constituted an assignment of the patent to the corporation, making it the owner and thus an indispensable party to infringement suits, but that the patent owner (Ackerman) was not an indispensable party to the declaratory judgment action between
• Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc.
  233 F.2d 180· 3d Cir.· 1956-05-02 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the prior judgment on patent infringement was final and appealable, and the unfair competition counterclaim lacked federal jurisdiction because it was unrelated to the patent claim.
• Shiley, Inc. v. Bentley Labs., Inc.
  794 F.2d 1561· Fed. Cir.· 1986-06-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the jury's findings of non-infringement, non-invalidity, and no inequitable conduct were supported by substantial evidence, and that the district court did not err in its rulings on damages, willful infringement, or d
• Erickson Tool Co. v. Balas Collet Co.
  404 F.2d 35· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Claim 3 of the patent is invalid for obviousness and lack of novelty.
• DR. Beck & Co. G.M.B.H. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  317 F.2d 538· 2d Cir.· 1963-05-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of an actual controversy.
• Under SEA Indus., Inc. v. Dacor Corp.
  833 F.2d 1551· Fed. Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to enter its intended written findings and conclusions, and that the district court's findings of patent validity and infringement were not clearly erroneous.
• Pac-Tec, Inc. v. Amerace Corp.
  903 F.2d 796· Fed. Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the judgment and order, finding the appeal frivolous and imposing sanctions on the appellant and its counsel for their conduct throughout the litigation.
• Eutectic Corp. v. Metco, Inc.
  579 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the patents were valid and infringed, reversing the lower court's finding of non-infringement.
• Am. Sterilizer Co. v. Sybron Corp. & Castle Co.
  526 F.2d 542· 3d Cir.· 1975-11-07 ·cited 12×
  A patent licensee can challenge the scope and validity of the underlying patent without first terminating its license agreement, as established by Lear, Inc. v. Adkins.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Hanovia Chem. & MFG. Co.
  179 F.2d 293· 3d Cir.· 1949-12-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that patent claims must be construed in light of the specification and applicant's admissions, limiting the claims to the specific type of activated electrode disclosed.
• Noveshen v. Bridgewater Assocs., LP
  S.D. Fla.· 2014-09-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims for trademark invalidity based on genericness and fraud, and most state law claims, but granted leave to amend some claims and allowed the unjust enrichment claim to proceed.
• Crosley Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. & MFG. Co. (two cases)
  152 F.2d 895· 3d Cir.· 1945-12-14 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the lower court's judgment on five patents, finding them invalid or not infringed, and reversed on five others, finding them valid and infringed.
• The Plymouth Rubber Co., Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co.
  321 F.2d 151· 1st Cir.· 1963-07-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that prior litigation established that the patent requires both a liquid and a resinous plasticizer, and that using only a resinous plasticizer, even with low-molecular-weight components, does not infringe.
• Leishman v. Radio Condenser Co.
  167 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1948-05-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that summary judgment for non-infringement was proper and that the injunction against asserting infringement was generally valid, but modified the judgment to clarify Leishman could proceed against Richards.
• Doble Eng'g Co. v. Leeds & Northrup Co.
  134 F.2d 78· 1st Cir.· 1943-02-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Claim 15 of the patent, when construed in light of the specification and other claims, covers only the internal shielding system and not the external shielding system.
• Foster v. Hallco Mfg. Co., Inc.
  947 F.2d 469· Fed. Cir.· 1991-09-27 ·cited 9×
  The Federal Circuit held that res judicata principles apply to consent decrees regarding patent validity, overriding the policy against licensee estoppel in Lear v. Adkins. However, the court remanded for further consideration of whether claim preclusion applied to the new convey
• Tol-O-Matic, Inc. v. Proma Produkt-Und Mktg. Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Norgren Co.
  945 F.2d 1546· Fed. Cir.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the non-infringement finding for claims 25-31, reversed the invalidity finding for lack of utility, and reversed the finding of inequitable conduct.
• Goya Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc.
  846 F.2d 848· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The pendency of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) registration proceeding is not a proper basis for a district court to stay or dismiss a trademark infringement or declaratory judgment action.