Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

summary judgmentpatentcivil procedure

trialsummary judgment

Related Cases

Lifescan, Inc. v. Can-Am Care Corp., 859 F.Supp. 392, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1533

Facts

Issue

Rule

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. An implied license is granted when a patent owner's unrestricted sale of an item useful only in practicing the claimed invention indicates that a license should be inferred, provided the item has no non-infringing uses.

The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid trial where there is no genuine factual issue and moving party is entitled to judgment as matter of law. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C.A.

Analysis

Conclusion

Who won?

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO Corp., 990 F.2d 1237, 25 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1249, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1572

Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., 412 F.3d 1331, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1200

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2013 WL 12324184

International Visual Corp. v. Crown Metal Mfg. Co., Inc., 991 F.2d 768, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1588

Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1013