Declaratory Judgment Of Non-Infringement

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

• Mooney v. Brunswick Corp.
  663 F.2d 724· 7th Cir.· 1981-10-27 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the gear structure patent was invalid due to obviousness and that the method patent was not infringed.
• Tights, Inc. v. The Honorable Edwin M. Stanley
  441 F.2d 336· 4th Cir.· 1971-04-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial for patent validity and infringement issues when joined with a claim for monetary damages.
• Progressive Eng'g, Inc. v. MacHinecraft, Inc.
  273 F.2d 593· 1st Cir.· 1959-12-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that certain claims of the '202 patent related to lint traps were invalid and not infringed, and that the '515 and '780 patents were not infringed by the appellants' device.
• Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., Ltd.
  927 F.2d 1200· Fed. Cir.· 1991-03-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its findings regarding prior invention and obviousness of the '008 patent, but reversed the finding that claims 1 and 3 of the '195 patent were enabled.
• Engel Indus., Inc. v. The Lockformer Co.
  946 F.2d 1528· Fed. Cir.· 1991-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the patent was not invalid for failure to disclose the best mode or for inequitable conduct, as there was no evidence of concealment of a preferred mode at the time of filing.
• Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc.
  946 F.2d 622· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the first-to-file rule, it should have stayed, rather than dismissed, the second-filed action due to jurisdictional uncertainty in the first-filed case.
• Vas-Cath Inc. & Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar
  935 F.2d 1555· Fed. Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that drawings alone can satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and reversed the grant of summary judgment because the district court applied an incorrect legal standard.
• Orient Express Trading Co., Ltd. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
  842 F.2d 650· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the cancellation of nineteen registered trademarks due to fraud on the PTO and dismissed claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition, finding no likelihood of confusion.
• Hewitt-Robins, Inc. v. Link-Belt Co.
  371 F.2d 225· 7th Cir.· 1966-11-30 ·cited 6×
  The manufacture and sale in the United States of unassembled parts of a patented combination for export and assembly outside the United States does not constitute infringement of the patent.
• Nat'l Coupling Co., Inc. v. Press-Seal Gasket Corp.
  323 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1963-10-10 ·cited 6×
  A patent owner cannot use the statutory defense for suppliers of staple articles (35 U.S.C. § 271(c)) as a basis to defeat jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action challenging infringement and patent validity.
• Wallace Prods., Inc. v. Falco Prods., Inc.
  242 F.2d 958· 3d Cir.· 1957-03-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint is not an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or an exception under § 1292.
• Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH
  972 F.2d 1272· Fed. Cir.· 1992-08-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was no double patenting because the two patents claimed distinct inventions, and the trial court erred in invalidating the claims based on a misinterpretation of the claims.
• Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Norton Co.
  929 F.2d 670· Fed. Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 4×
  It was an abuse of discretion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement based on a pending interference proceeding when the interference cannot decide or moot the infringement issues and the plaintiff will suffer significant harm from delay.
• FMC Corp. & Vulcan Equip. Co., Ltd. v. Hennessy Indus., Inc.
  836 F.2d 521· Fed. Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the Tabordon patent invalid and the Strang and Wood patents not infringed, but vacated the judgment regarding inequitable conduct for the Wood patent and remanded for further findings.
• United States Jaycees v. Cedar Rapids Jaycees
  754 F.2d 302· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 4×
  The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of a new Supreme Court decision, directing the district court to consider whether the USJ's bylaws amendment changes the context of the trademark revocation and to re-evaluate the countercla
• Wells MFG. Corp. v. Littelfuse, Inc.
  547 F.2d 346· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the replacement of a brake switch, where the patent claim includes link members as part of the patented combination, constitutes permissible repair and not infringing reconstruction.
• Capri Jewelry Inc. & Tancer & Two, Inc. v. Hattie Carnegie Jewelry Enters., Ltd.
  539 F.2d 846· 2d Cir.· 1976-05-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that file wrapper estoppel barred the patentee from using the doctrine of equivalents to claim infringement, and that the patentee was not a necessary party to the action.
• Avery Prods. Corp. v. Morgan Adhesives Co.
  496 F.2d 254· 6th Cir.· 1974-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the patent was invalid due to anticipation by prior art and prior public sales/uses, and that any improvements were obvious, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Crown Mach. & Tool Co. v. D & S Indus.
  409 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1969-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed the district courts' decisions in both cases, agreeing with their findings on patent validity, infringement, royalties, and antitrust claims.
• Yardley Created Prods. Co. v. Clopay Corp.
  324 F.2d 932· 7th Cir.· 1963-11-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because issues of file wrapper estoppel and the doctrine of equivalents present genuine issues of material fact.
• Shubin v. The United States Dist. Court FOR the S. Dist. OF Cal.
  313 F.2d 250· 9th Cir.· 1963-01-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the claim, as modified by pleadings, admissions, and stipulations, is purely equitable, and thus petitioners are not entitled to a jury trial on the issues raised.
• Filt-O-Pure Prods. Corp. & Fred E. Newman v. Chemex Corp. & Peter Schlumbohm
  222 F.2d 424· 2d Cir.· 1955-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted on the record before the district court, and the case must be remanded for trial.
• Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. Ciba Vision Corp.
  540 F. Supp. 2d 1233· M.D. Fla.· 2008-03-14 ·cited 3×
  The court stated that it must construe patent claims before addressing validity and that it is not bound by a prior district court's claim construction, though it may give it deference.
• Harris Corp. v. Fed. Express Corp.
  670 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a qualified covenant not to sue, coupled with the patentee's retention of rights related to inequitable conduct and the substantial similarity between asserted and unasserted patents, was insufficient to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the
• Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.
  348 F. Supp. 2d 1335· S.D. Fla.· 2004-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that sending cease and desist letters to distributors, even if construed as solicitation, does not establish sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process for personal jurisdiction over patent claims and intimately linked state law claims.
• Westvaco Corp. v. Int'l Paper Co.
  991 F.2d 735· Fed. Cir.· 1993-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that damages for patent infringement cannot be awarded for sales made before the reissue patent date if the reissue claims are not identical to the original claims. The court also reversed the finding of willful infringement, finding the reliance on competent couns
• Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc.
  835 F.2d 859· Fed. Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 2×
  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, finding that Cordis had a reasonable apprehension of patent infringement suit and that the injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo pending litigation.
• Revlon, Inc. v. Carson Prods. Co.
  803 F.2d 676· Fed. Cir.· 1986-10-08 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding of patent invalidity based on obviousness but reversed the award of attorney fees, finding the case was not exceptional.
• Kransco Mfg., Inc. v. Bernhard Markwitz
  656 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's contacts with California were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
• Turbo Mach. Co. & Alba-Waldensian, Inc. v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
  362 F.2d 5· 3d Cir.· 1966-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's apparatus did not infringe the patent because it did not embody the patent's core teaching of concurrent setting and dyeing in a single treatment zone.
• Corn Prods. Co. v. Standard Brands, Inc.
  359 F.2d 739· 7th Cir.· 1966-04-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that all claims of the patent in suit are invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness over the prior art, including previously manufactured margarines and published articles.
• P & D Sales & MFG. Co. v. Winter
  334 F.2d 830· 7th Cir.· 1964-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Winter patent was valid and infringed by the accused devices, reversing the district court's finding of non-infringement and invalidity.
• Hartford Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Henry L. Crowley & Co., Inc
  219 F.2d 568· 3d Cir.· 1955-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the second count for declaratory judgment as no actual controversy existed, nor in staying the first count pending the New York action.
• Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. Ciba Vision Corp.
  648 F. Supp. 2d 1294· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Johnson & Johnson's Acuvue Oasys lens infringes CIBA's patents regarding oxygen permeability and transmissibility, finding that the measured oxygen permeability, which varies with thickness due to boundary effects, meets the patent's requirements.
• Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. Ciba Vision Corp.
  634 F. Supp. 2d 1293· M.D. Fla.· 2008-12-03 ·cited 1×
  The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on infringement and validity issues, finding genuine disputes of material fact.
• Dow Chem. Co. v. Mee Indus.
  264 F. Supp. 2d 1018· M.D. Fla.· 2002-09-19 ·cited 1×
  The court found that the defendants failed to prove the patents were invalid due to the on-sale bar or obviousness, and that Dow failed to establish damages.
• Andrx Pharms., Inc. v. Biovail Corp.
  175 F. Supp. 2d 1362· S.D. Fla.· 2001-09-19 ·cited 1×
  The court dismissed claims against the Federal Defendants and state law claims against Biovail, finding them preempted or lacking a private right of action under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Antitrust claims were allowed to proceed. Claims for infringement/invalidity were dismissed as p
• Trasco Wellness, LLC v. Tampa Bay Spine & Sports Med., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-18
  The court held that the case was not exceptional, therefore denying the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under the Lanham Act.
• Shenzhen Mammotion Innovation Co., Ltd. v. FutureGen Techs. Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-15
  Venue is improper in the District of Columbia because the substantial events giving rise to the claims occurred in Florida, not D.C.
• Trasco Wellness, LLC v. Tampa Bay Spine & Sports Med., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-02
  Trasco Wellness, operating as Tampa Bay Spine and Sport, sought declaratory relief that its use of the name "TAMPA BAY SPINE AND SPORT" did not infringe Tampa Bay Spine & Sports Medicine's (TBSSM) federally registered trademark "TAMPA BAY SPINE & SPORTS MEDICINE." The district co
• PainTEQ, LLC v. Omnia Med., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-21
  PainTEQ, LLC and Omnia Medical, LLC, former business partners in the surgical device industry, engaged in a patent, copyright, and trademark dispute following the termination of their distribution agreement and PainTEQ's development of a competing surgical cannula product. The co
• PainTEQ, LLC v. Omnia Med., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-27
  The court held that an exclusive licensee with the sole right to prosecute intellectual property, as granted by an ELA, has standing to sue for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. However, for copyright infringement claims, the licensee must show explicit language in the
• XYZ Corp. v. The Individuals
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-05
  The court held that the notice pleading standard applies to affirmative defenses and granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike.
• Zagg Inc. v. TX Trading, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-04-25
  The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying a motion to compel and granting a motion to quash, finding no clear error or abuse of discretion in the magistrate's rulings on relevance and proportionality.
• Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLC v. Good Sportsman's Mktg., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-01-22
  The court held that venue was improper for claims against Hadley and Tru-View, and that the first-filed rule mandated transfer of the remaining claims against GSM to the Texas court where a similar action was previously filed.
• The Descartes Sys. Grp., Inc. v. Descartes Labs, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-01-18
  The court held that the heightened pleading standards of Iqbal and Twombly do not apply to affirmative defenses, and absent specific objections or prejudice, defenses will not be stricken.
• PMC Prof'l Mgmt. & Consulting, LLC v. Red Buddha Bar & Hookah Lounge, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-09-27
  The court denied the motion to dismiss the counterclaims, finding the movant failed to carry its burden.
• Omnia Med., LLC v. Painteq, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-30
  Omnia Medical sued PainTEQ for infringing its exclusive patent licenses for a sacroiliac joint fusion system, claiming that PainTEQ's competing products unlawfully copied Omnia's PsiF™ System. In this claim construction order, the court interpreted disputed terms in the utility p
• KPR U.S., LLC v. LifeSync Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-06-14
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, allowing the defendant to amend its counterclaims to include additional patents.
• Interactive Content Engines, LLC v. Rumble USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-08
  The court held that the defendants' affirmative defenses were not insufficient as a matter of law and their counterclaims sufficiently stated a claim, thus denying the plaintiff's motion to strike and dismiss.