Go to Home Page Communities
  
Let your voice be heard by joining the community today. Sign up.
Patent Law Center
RSS Email Alert




Patent Law - Top Cases
9/15/2009 11:08:08 AM EST
LexisNexis Patent Law Center Staff
Top 10 most recent Patent Cases on Lexis.com for the week of September 6th, 2009
1. Lucent Techs. v. Gateway, 2008-1485, 2008-1487, 2008-1495, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20325, September 11, 2009, Decided
 
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Lucent Techs. v. Gateway
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne’s Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Lucent Techs. v. Gateway
 
2. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 2008-1306, 2008-1331, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20155, September 10, 2009, Decided  Analysis, As of: Sep 15, 2009
 
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne’s Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.
 
3. Sanofi-Aventis United States Llc v. Sandoz, 2009-1427, -1444, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20294, September 10, 2009, Decided, THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
 
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Sanofi-Aventis United States Llc v. Sandoz
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne’s Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Sanofi-Aventis United States Llc v. Sandoz
 
4. Nystrom v. Trex Co., 2009-1026, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20016, September 8, 2009, Decided  Analysis, As of: Sep 15, 2009
 
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Nystrom v. Trex Co.
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne’s Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Nystrom v. Trex Co.
 
5. Lydall Thermal/Acoustical, Inc. v. Federal-Mogul Corp., 2009-1135, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20077, September 8, 2009, Decided, THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.  Analysis, As of: Sep 15, 2009
 
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Lydall Thermal/Acoustical, Inc. v. Federal-Mogul Corp.
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne’s Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Lydall Thermal/Acoustical, Inc. v. Federal-Mogul Corp.
 
6. Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-0485, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83028, September 11, 2009, Decided, September 11, 2009, Filed
 
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings
 
Non-subscribers can access Federal Case Law, Codes, Shepard's® Citations, Administrative, Legislative, and Secondary Sources using lexisOne’s Research Value Package.
 
7. Lapine v. Seinfeld, No. 08 Civ. 128 (LTS)(RLE), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82304, September 10, 2009, Decided, September 10, 2009, Filed
 
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Lapine v. Seinfeld
 
Non-subscribers can access Federal Case Law, Codes, Shepard's® Citations, Administrative, Legislative, and Secondary Sources using lexisOne’s Research Value Package.
 
8. Furminator, Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc., Case No. 4:08CV00367 ERW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DIVISION, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82350, September 10, 2009, Decided, September 10, 2009, Filed
 
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Furminator, Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc.
 
Non-subscribers can access Federal Case Law, Codes, Shepard's® Citations, Administrative, Legislative, and Secondary Sources using lexisOne’s Research Value Package.
 
9. Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-0485 (CONSOLIDATED), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82417, September 10, 2009, Decided, September 10, 2009, Filed
 
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
 
Non-subscribers can access Federal Case Law, Codes, Shepard's® Citations, Administrative, Legislative, and Secondary Sources using lexisOne’s Research Value Package.
 
10. Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-0485 (CONSOLIDATED), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82423, September 10, 2009, Decided, September 10, 2009, Filed
 
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
 
Non-subscribers can access Federal Case Law, Codes, Shepard's® Citations, Administrative, Legislative, and Secondary Sources using lexisOne’s Research Value Package.

Create an account or login to post comments.

Martindale-Hubbell(R) Connected - Join Now

lexisOne Community

Community Questions





Your Resources

Your Toolbox

Our Communities

Other Links