⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

12 opinions for “LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corporation”

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016-09-16 · Published · cited 22× · 837 F.3d 1316; 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1001; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16944; 2016 WL 4933224
PROST, Chief Judge. DefendanL-Appellant LifeCell Corporation (“LifeCell”) appeals from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered infa-vor of Plaintiff-Appellee LifeNet Health (“LifeNet”). Following claim construction and trial, a jury found LifeNet’s U.S. Patent No. 6,569,200 (“’200 patent”) infringed by LifeCell and not invalid.
District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2015-03-18 · Published · cited 0× · 93 F. Supp. 3d 477; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34411; 2015 WL 1258984
OPINION AND ORDER HENRY COKE MORGAN, JR., Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court upon Defendant LifeCell Corporation’s (“Defendant” or “LifeCell”) Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Remittitur, Doc. 415, and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Doc. 419 (hereinafter “Motions”). A hearing was held on Thursday, January 29, 2015. Ruling from the bench, the Court DENIED t
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2022-05-20 · Published · cited 0×
Case: 21-1634 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 05/20/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MICHAEL PHILIP KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2021-1634, 2021-1691 ______________________ Appeals from the United S
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2022-05-20 · Published · cited 0×
Case: 21-1634 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 05/20/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MICHAEL PHILIP KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2021-1634, 2021-1691 ______________________ Appeals from the United S
District Court, N.D. California · 2018-07-19 · Published · cited 4× · 329 F. Supp. 3d 1070
SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge Before the Court are the parties' post-trial motions (Dkt. Nos. 648, 649, 650, 661, 662, 666), plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction (Dkt. Nos. 660, 666), and two administrative motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 684, 697). After hearing argument and considering the parties' materials, the Court rules as follows.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018-09-28 · Published · cited 23× · 905 F.3d 1341
Prost, Chief Judge. The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation ("WARF") sued Apple Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752 ("the '752 patent"). After a two-week, bifurcated trial, a jury found Apple liable for infringement and awarded over $
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018-07-25 · Published · cited 24× · 896 F.3d 1357
Prost, Chief Judge. Plaintiff-cross-appellant Trustees of Boston University ("BU") sued defendants-appellants Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. and Everlight Americas, Inc. (together, "Everlight"); Epistar Corp. ("Epistar"); Lite-On Inc., Lite-On Service USA, Inc., Lite-On Technology Corp., and Lite-On Trading USA, Inc. (together, "Lite-On") (collectively, "Defendants") for infringing BU
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2025-09-08 · Published · cited 0×
Case: 24-1342 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 09/08/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MAGĒMĀ TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PHILLIPS 66, PHILLIPS 66 CO., WRB REFINING LP, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2024-1342 ______________________
District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2018-06-14 · Published · cited 3× · 323 F. Supp. 3d 747
Robert E. Payne, Senior United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on HANKOOK TIRE COMPANY LIMITED'S AND HANKOOK TIRE AMERICA COMPANY'S MOTION TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS, TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, AND JURY INSTRUCTION (ECF No. 433). For the following reasons, the motion will be denied. BACKGROUND In this products liability action, Robert Benedict sued Hankook Tire Comp
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019-12-18 · Published · cited 0×
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WILLOWOOD, LLC, WILLOWOOD USA, LLC, WILLOWOOD AZOXYSTROBIN, LLC, WILLOWOOD LIMITED, Defendants-Cross-Appellants ______________________ 2018-1614, 2018-2044 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District
District Court, District of Columbia · 2022-05-23 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BRANDON MONTGOMERY, as personal representative for the estate of Gary Montgomery, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 18-1928 (JDB) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Brandon Montgomery brings this lawsuit on
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014-08-15 · Published · cited 0× · 38 F. Supp. 3d 589; 2014 WL 3973870
MEMORANDUM DuBOIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs and counterclaim-defendants, Comcast Communications, LLC and related corporate entities (collectively “Com-cast”), brought this action against defendants and counterclaim-plaintiffs, Sprint *594Communications Co., LP and related corporate entities (collecti