Sterling Consulting Corp. v. United States, 122 S. Ct. 921 (2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Sterling Consulting Corp. v. United States, 122 S. Ct. 921 (2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
61 citation events (61 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hutchins v. Zoll Medical Corp. (mad, 2006-05-11) · Strongest negative: Steven K. Dunlap v. G &L Holding Group (ca11, 2004-08-27)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Steven K. Dunlap v. G &L Holding Group
11th Cir. · 2004 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446, 455 (6th Cir.2001) (summarily agreeing with Fourth Circuit that ideas fixed in tangible medium of expression are within the subject matter of copyright and, therefore, plaintiff's claim for conversion of those ideas is preempted by Copyright Act), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 885 (2002); United States ex. rel.
discussed Cited "see" Hutchins v. Zoll Medical Corp.
D. Mass. · 2006 · signal: accord · confidence high
Co., 100 F.3d 228, 230 (1st Cir.1996) (noting courts must “resolve all factual disputes and any competing, rational inferences in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment has entered.” (citation omitted)); accord Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1338-39 (Fed.Cir.2001) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 886 (2002). 2 A. The Patent and Copyrights in Suit.
discussed Cited "see" Eller Industries, Inc. v. Indian Motorcycle Manufacturing, Inc. (In re Indian Motorcycle Trademark Litigation)
D. Mass. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Sterling Consulting Corp. (In re Indian Motorcycle Co.), 259 B.R. 458 (2001), vacated and superseded by United States v. Sterling Consulting Corp., 261 B.R. 800 (1st Cir. BAP 2001) and by Sterling Consulting Corp. v. United States, 245 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 885 (2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Paone v. Microsoft Corp.
E.D.N.Y · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
Inc. v. The Standard Register Co., 144 F.Supp.2d 188, 191-92 (W.D.N.Y.2001); see also Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2001) (noting that infringement is properly decided upon summary judgment when no reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in the properly construed claim either is or is not found in the accused device), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 886 (2002); Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 38 F.3d 1192, 1199 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“In order for a court to find infringement, the plaintiff must show the presence of every .…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Valley Realty Co. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2001); see also Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1338-39 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.2001), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 886 (2002); Telenor Satellite Servs., Inc. v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 114, 119 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lee v. ACCESSORIES BY PEAK
W.D.N.Y. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
Inc. v. The Standard Register Company, 144 F.Supp.2d 188, 191-92 (W.D.N.Y.2001); see also Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2001) (infringement is properly decided upon summary judgment when no reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in the properly construed claim either is or is not found in the accused device), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 886 (2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." PCL Construction Services, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2001); see also Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1338-39 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 886 (2002); Telenor Satellite Servs. v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 114, 119 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Imprimis Investors LLC v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2001); see also Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1338-39 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.2001), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 886 (2002); Telenor Satellite Servs., Inc. v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 114, 119 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Burchick Construction Co. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2001); see also Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1338-39 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.2001), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 886 (2002); Telenor Satellite Servs. v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 114, 119 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Schooner Harbor Ventures, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2001); see also Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1338-39 (Fed.Cir.2001), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 886 (2002); Telenor Satellite Servs. v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 114, 119 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
M.D. Penn. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
Amsted Indus., 24 F.3d at 187 ; see also Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1345-46 (Fed.Cir.2001) (stating that, in making the notice determination, the fact finder “cannot take into consideration the knowledge or understanding of the alleged infringer, but must focus on the action of the patentee”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 886 (2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Contship Containerlines, Inc. v. Howard Industries, Inc., Transworld Freight Forwarding, Inc.
6th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
Murray Hill Publ’ns., Inc. v. ABC Communications, Inc., 264 F.3d 622 , 637 (6th Cir.2001) (quoting Cascaden v. Magryta, 247 Mich. 267 , 225 N.W. 511, 512 (1929)); see also Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446, 458 (6th Cir.2001) (distinguishing a quasi-contract from a contract implied in fact), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 , 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 885 (2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.
D.N.J. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Nat’l Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 848 (2d Cir.1997); see also Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446, 453 (6th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 921 , 151 L.Ed.2d 885 (2002); Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 166 F.3d 772, 785-86 , reh’g en banc denied, 180 F.3d 267 (5th Cir.1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STERLING CONSULTING CORPORATION
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 01-694.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 22, 2002.
122 S. Ct. 921
Published

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.