Legal Opinion
Filmtec Corporation v. Hydranautics
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided March 18, 1993No. 92-1091PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Hydranautics appeals from the August 30, 1991 judgment and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California which determined that FilmTec holds legal title to Cadotte U.S. Patent 4,277,344, the ’344 patent is valid, and Hydranautics willfully infringed that patent. FilmTec Corp. v. Hydranautics, Case No. 90-563 GT (M) (S.D.Cal. Aug. 30, 1991). Because we conclude that the Saline Water Conversion Act of 1971 provides that the United States is entitled to ownership of the ’344 patent, FilmTec cannot maintain the instant suit. • We therefore…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik Ag v. Murata MacHinery Ltd., and Murata of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Hybritech Incorporated v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- King Instrument Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Otari Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Filmtec Corporation v. Allied-Signal Inc., and Uop Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Brothers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Hydranautics v. Filmtec Corporation, OpinionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 2003
- Schuerman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1994
- Hydranautics v. Filmtec CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.