Legal Opinion
Trintec Industries, Inc. v. Top-u.s.a. Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided July 2, 2002No. 01-1568PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RADER, Circuit Judge.
On summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found Trintec Industries, Inc.’s United States Patent No. 5,818,717 ('717 patent) invalid as inherently anticipated. Trintec, Indus. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., No. C-2-99-1179 (S.D.Ohio Jun. 19, 2001). Because the '717 patent is not inherently anticipated, this court vacates and remands.
I
Trintec is the assignee of the '717 patent. The inventor, Brendon G. Nunes, filed the '717 patent application on June 2, 1993. The '717 patent claims a cost-effective method of producing, in low volume,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Zenith Electronics Corp. v. PDI Communication Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Glaxo Group Limited and Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Company, Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.