United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Showing opinions 1 to 20 of 346 Next
| In Re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A. | November 13, 2008 |
| Before: Newman, Lourie, Linn, Lourie, Newman | |
| ip | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| U.S. v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp. | November 13, 2008 |
| Before: Schall, Prost, Rader | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Dept. of Def. | November 4, 2008 |
| Appeal from the Western District of Texas | |
| Before: Michel, Mayer, Stearns | |
| discrimination, first amendment | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Blogged:How Appealing "Appeals Court Rules Against Diversity in Defense Contracts"How Appealing Federal Circuit declares unconstitutional federal law setting goal that five percent of federal defense contracting dollars be awarded to small business... | |
| In Re DBC | November 3, 2008 |
| Appeal from the District of Massachusetts | |
| Before: Dyk, Linn, Stearns | |
| ip | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Dean v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n | October 31, 2008 |
| Before: Newman, Prost, Rader | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| In Re Bilski | October 30, 2008 |
| Before: Newman, Dyk, Schall, Bryson, Moore, Michel, Mayer, Gajarsa, Prost, Lourie, Rader, Linn | |
| finance, sentencing, ip, first amendment | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Blogged:How Appealing "Court limits 'business method' patents"How Appealing En banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decides what constitutes a "new and useful process" for purposes of patent eligibilityVolokh Conspiracy Federal Circuit Rethinks Scope of Patentability: | |
| In Re Alonso | October 30, 2008 |
| Appeal from the District of Massachusetts | |
| Before: Michel, Mayer, Stearns | |
| ip | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz | October 21, 2008 |
| Appeal from the Northern District of Illinois | |
| Before: Newman, Gajarsa, Archer | |
| environment, ip | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Net Moneyin Inc. v. Verisign, Inc. | October 20, 2008 |
| Appeal from the District of Arizona | |
| Before: Moore, Clevenger, Linn | |
| ip, fourth amendment | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Minks v. Polaris Industries, Inc. | October 17, 2008 |
| Appeal from the Middle District of Florida | |
| Before: Newman, Plager, Gajarsa | |
| ip | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| In Re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitruest Litig. | October 15, 2008 |
| Appeal from the Eastern District of New York | |
| Before: Schall, Prost, Ward | |
| ip | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n | October 14, 2008 |
| Before: Bryson, Rader, Linn | |
| ip | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Blogged:How Appealing "Court sends chip makers' suit back to trade body" | |
| Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek Inc. | October 10, 2008 |
| Appeal from the Northern District of California | |
| Before: Newman, Schall, Plager | |
| ip | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Asyst Technologies Inc. v. Emtrak Inc. | October 10, 2008 |
| Appeal from the Northern District of California | |
| Before: Newman, Bryson, Michel | |
| ip | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Lamour v. Peake | October 10, 2008 |
| Before: Newman, Dyk, Gajarsa | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distributive Software Inc. | October 9, 2008 |
| Appeal from the Southern District of California | |
| Before: Newman, Lourie, Linn | |
| ip | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Hogan v. Peake | October 9, 2008 |
| Before: Mayer, Prost, Linn | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. U.S. | October 8, 2008 |
| Before: Mayer, Prost, Lourie | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Cohesive Tech. Inc. v. Waters Corp. | October 7, 2008 |
| Appeal from the District of Massachusetts | |
| Before: Mayer, Prost, Linn | |
| ip | |
| Full text: PDF | |
| Drake v. Agency for Int'l Dev. | October 7, 2008 |
| Appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia | |
| Before: Moore, Michel, O’grady | |
| Full text: PDF | |
Showing opinions 1 to 20 of 346 Next