Filter This View

  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Buffalo Technology, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2008-09-24
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2008-09-19
    Court: Fed. Cir.
    Judge: Bryson, Circuit Judge.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: For plaintiff-appellee: Daniel Furniss, Townsend and Townsend and Crew, Palo Alto, Calif.
    for defendant: For defendants-appellants: Richard Kelly, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, Alexandria, Va.
    Case Number: 2007-1449

    Published opinionBefore LOURIE, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON. Opinion concurring in the result filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE.Commonwea

  • Rothe Development Corp. v. Dep't of Defense

    Publication Date: 2008-11-12
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2008-11-04
    Court: Fed. Cir.
    Judge: Michel, Chief Judge.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Attorney for plaintiff-appellant: David Barton, The Gardner Law Firm, San Antonio.
    for defendant: Attorney for defendant-appellees: Karen Stevens, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
    Case Number: 2008-1017

    Published opinionBefore MICHEL, Chief Judge, MAYER, Circuit Judge, and STEARNS,*fn1 District Judge.This case concerns the constitutionality of 10 U.S.C. §

  • Favreau v. United States

    Publication Date: 2002-12-30
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2002-12-30
    Court: Fed. Cir.
    Judge: Per Curiam.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 01-5140

    This is a class action suit brought by former members of the armed forces whose enlistment or reenlistment bonuses were recouped by the United States after they were separated from the armed forces fo

  • Bush v. United States

    Publication Date: 2010-04-07
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2010-03-31
    Court: Fed. Cir.
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: Nos. 2009-5008 & 2009-5009

    Published opinionBefore LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Opinion concurring in the result filed by Circuit Judge PROST.These two tax refu

  • Salman Ranch Ltd v. United States

    Publication Date: 2009-08-07
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2009-07-30
    Court: Fed. Cir.
    Judge: Schall, Circuit Judge.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 2008-5053

    Published opinionBefore NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, and PATEL, District Judge.*fn1Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge SCHALL. Dissenting opinion

  • Rothe Development Corporation v. United States Department of Defense

    Publication Date: 2001-08-22
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2001-08-20
    Court: Fed. Cir.
    Judge: Michel, Circuit Judge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 00-1171

    Appealed from: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Judge Edward C. PradoThis federal contract case concerns the constitutionality of � 1207 of the National Defense Author

  • Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd

    Publication Date: 2009-09-25
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2009-09-15
    Court: Fed. Cir.
    Judge: Schall, Circuit Judge.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: Nos. 2009-1020, -1096

    Before MAYER, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.This is a patent case. Amgen Inc. ("Amgen") is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,441,868 ("the '868 patent"), 5,547,933 ("the '933 patent"), 5,618,

  • Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2008-10-15
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2008-10-10
    Court: Fed. Cir.
    Judge: Plager, Circuit Judge.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: For plaintiff-appellant: Timothy Vezeau, Katten Muchin Rosenman, Chicago.
    for defendant: For defendant-cross appellant: J. Donald McCarthy, Duane Morris, Los Angeles.
    Case Number: Nos. 2007-1441, -1463

    Published opinionBefore NEWMAN, PLAGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.This is a patent case. It is not unusual for a patent case on appeal to turn more on a question of law or legal procedure than