green
Positive treatment
3.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Steven K. Dunlap v. G &L Holding Group
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"
Curtis v. Herb Chambers I-95, Inc.
See Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446, 456 (6th Cir. 2001), cert, denied, 534 U.S. 1114 (2002) (distinguishing between implied-in-fact contract, where there is meeting of minds of parties by words or conduct, and contract implied in law, which is not true contract but quasi contract with obligations imposed by law).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hutchins v. Zoll Medical Corp.
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, e.g."
Paone v. Microsoft Corp.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Yanco
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 01-674.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 22, 2002.
Published
C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.