Legal Opinion
Digital Control v. The Charles MacHine Works (Also Known as Ditchwitch)
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided February 8, 2006No. 2005-1128PublishedCited by 176 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Digital Control, Inc., and Merlin Technology, Inc. (collectively, DCI) appeal from the decision of the district court for the Western District of Washington finding that United States Patent No. 5,767,678 (the ’678 patent), No. 6,008,651 (the ’651 patent), and No. 6,232,-780 (the ’780 patent) (collectively, the pat ents in suit) are unenforceable for inequitable conduct. 1 Digital Control. Inc. v. The Charles Mach. Works, No. C03-0103P (W.D. Wash. June 9, 2004) (Bench Trial).
The district court had previously awarded partial summary…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. And E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Hollister IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by176 opinions
- Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Innogenetics, N v. v. Abbott LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
171 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.