Davies v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
This action is before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff contends that the United States has used his patent, U.S. Patent No. 3,711,638 (“ ’638 patent”), without providing just compensation. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that the F-4E, RF-4C, and F111F aircraft, as equipped with “PAVE TACK” electro-optical target designator systems literally infringe his patent for a remote monitoring and weapon control systems. Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment on liability and defendant cross-moves for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
A The…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- John K. Rains v. Cascade Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- TM Patents, L.P v. International Business MacHines Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1999
- Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1998
- Chemical Separation Technology, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
- Kersavage v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
- Clintec Nutrition Co. v. Baxa Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.