Legal Opinion

Davies v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided August 30, 1994No. 90-78CPublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
  4. John K. Rains v. Cascade Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
  5. 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

  1. TM Patents, L.P v. International Business MacHines Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1999
  2. Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1998
  3. Chemical Separation Technology, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
  4. Kersavage v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
  5. Clintec Nutrition Co. v. Baxa Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1997

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API