International Rectifier Corp. v. Samsung Electronics, Ltd., et al. (Fed. Cir.)

March 18, 2004 on 4:03 pm | In Caselaw |

International Rectifier Corp. v. Samsung Electronics, Ltd., et al.
Federal Circuit, March 18, 2004
HOLDING:”Because the district court abused its discretion in determining that Samsung’s extraterritorial activities violated the Permanent Injunction, and because there is no evidence to support the district court’s assertion that Samsung and IXYS had agreed to subvert the application of the injunction, nor is there any evidence to support the conclusion that IXYS was aiding, abetting, or otherwise acting “in active concert or participation with [Samsung],” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), we: (1) reverse the district court’s Contempt Order; (2) reverse the district court’s denial of IXYS’s motion to clarify, vacate, or modify the injunction; and (3) vacate any of the district court’s findings of fact to the contrary, upon which the district court’s Denial Order and Contempt Order were based.”
Copy of the case here.
Additional summary to follow…

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

No Comments yet

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

International Rectifier Corp. v. Ixys Corp. (Fed. Cir.)

March 18, 2004 on 3:55 pm | In Caselaw |

International Rectifier Corp. v. Ixys Corp.
Federal Circuit, March 18, 2004
Holding: “Because IXYS’s allegations of derivation and inequitable conduct, even if taken as uncontroverted, are insufficient as a matter of law, we affirm the district court’s Derivation Order. However, because the district court’s Equitable Defenses Order was based solely on IXYS’s invocation of privilege, and because IXYS has set forth other, non-privileged evidence in support of the defenses of laches and estoppel, we vacate the order and remand to the district court for consideration of IXYS’s defenses in light of the non-privileged evidence. Because we hold that the district court’s construction of the term “adjoining” as used in claims 19, 22, 24, and 27 of the ’699 patent was erroneous, and because no reasonable jury could find those claims infringed based on the facts stipulated to by the parties, we reverse the district court’s denial of IXYS’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 19, 22, 24, and 27 of the ’699 patent and reverse-in-part the district court’s Final Judgment with respect to those claims. Because the district court also erred in construing the claim terms “polygonal” and “annular,” and because genuine issues of material fact remain with respect to the asserted claims containing those terms, we vacate-in-part the portion of the district court’s Final Judgment relating thereto and remand the case to the original district court judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Copy of the case here.
Better summary to follow….

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

No Comments yet

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^