green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.2 score
“f a party were to lose the exemption every time a business purpose was detectable in its otherwise infringing activities, the exemption would virtually never be available and thus would fail to achieve congress' objective.”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.
f a party were to lose the exemption every time a business purpose was detectable in its otherwise infringing activities, the exemption would virtually never be available and thus would fail to achieve congress' objective.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
UCB, Inc. v. Catalent Pharma Solutions Inc.
The Federal Circuit also once referred to a defendant’s “right to assert a section 271(e)(1) defense.” Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex Co., Inc., 991 F.2d 808, 808 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Shirley R. Hicks v. Department of the Air Force
See Hill v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 991 F.2d 808 , No. 92-3509, 1993 WL 45708, *1 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Integra LifeSciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA
See Intermedies Inc. v. Ventritex Inc., 775 F.Supp. 1269 (N.D.Cal.1991), aff 'd, 991 F.2d 808 , 26 USPQ2d 1524 (Fed.Cir.1993) (citing Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 982 F.2d 1520 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck Kgaa
See Intermedics Inc. v. Ventritex Inc., 775 F.Supp. 1269 (N.D.Cal. 1991), aff'd, 991 F.2d 808 , 26 USPQ2d 1524 (Fed.Cir.1993) (citing Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 982 F.2d 1520 (Fed.Cir.1992)). 15 This court has not considered the question arising in this case, namely, whether the pre-clinical research conducted under the Scripps-Merck agreement is exempt from liability for infringement of Integra's patents under § 271(e)(1).
cited
Cited "see"
Nexell Therapeutics, Inc. v. AmCell Corp.
See Intermedics v. Ventritex, 775 F.Supp. 1269, 1280-81 (N.D.Cal.1991), aff'd without op., 991 F.2d 808 , 1993 WL 87405 (Fed.Cir.1993) (Table).
cited
Cited "see"
Chartex International Plc v. M.D. Personal Products Corporation, Robert E. Lash and Harvey Lash
See Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 1269, 1278 , 20 USPQ2d 1422, 1428 (N.D.Cal.1991), aff'd, 991 F.2d 808 (Fed.Cir.1993) (non-precedential decision).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Moore U.S.A. Inc. v. Standard Register Co.
See, e.g., In-termedies, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 1269,1285-86 (N.D.Cal.1991), affd 991 F.2d 808 , 1993 WL 87405 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
L.A. Gear, Inc. v. E.S. Originals, Inc.
See 4 Donald S. Chisum, Patents § 16.02[4] (1993) [hereinafter Chisum]; Beidler v. Photostat Corp., 10 F.Supp. 628, 630 (W.D.N.Y.1935), aff'd, 81 F.2d 1015 (2d Cir.1936); see also Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 1269, 1286 (N.D.Cal.1991) (holding that mere “demonstration or display of an accused product, even in a [sic] obviously commercial atmosphere, does not constitute an infringing use under § 271(a)”), aff'd, 991 F.2d 808 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gerald Lee Lopez
v.
United States Postal Service
v.
United States Postal Service
92-3547.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Mar 4, 1993.
Unpublished
Citer courts: D. Delaware (1)
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
Gerald Lee LOPEZ, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 92-3547.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
March 4, 1993.
Before ARCHER, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and MICHEL Circuit Judge:
Judgment
PER CURIAM.
1
AFFIRMED. Fed.Cir.R. 36.