Legal Opinion
Magnetar Technologies Corp. v. Intamin, Ltd.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 14, 2015No. 13-56119, 13-56333PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Magnetar Technologies Corporation (Magnetar) alleges that Defendant-Appel-lee/Cross-Appellant Intamin Limited (In-tamin) maliciously prosecuted a patent infringement action against it, asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350 (’350 Patent). Magnetar claims that Intamin prosecuted the action even though the '350 Patent was invalid pursuant to the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (on-sale bar). Magnetar also contends that Intamin, along with its European affiliate corporations, used the invalid '350 Patent to monopolize the market for…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- MCI Communications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & OlikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 2019
- Rubicon Global Ventures, Inc. v. Chongqing Zongshen Group Import/Export Corp.District Court, D. Oregon · 2016
- Glacio Inc v. Dongguan Sutuo Industrial Co LtdDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2024
- H&H Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Cambrex Charles City, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
- In re: Kevan Harry GilmanUnited States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.