Legal Opinion
Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided December 19, 2012No. 19-1789PublishedCited by 94 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RADER, Chief Judge.
After a trial, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied American Technical Ceramics Corporation’s (“ATC”) motions for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and in the alternative a new trial on validity and infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,816,356 (“the '356 patent”). Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Technical Ceramics Corp., 723 F.Supp.2d 1284 (S.D.Cal.2010); Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Technical Ceramics Corp., No. 3:08-CV-00335, 2010 WL 3070370 (S.D.Cal. Aug. 5, 2010) (“Post-JMOL Order”). ATC appeals these decisions. Presidio…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Boumediene v. BushSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Joan Hangarter v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, and the Paul Revere Life Insurance Company Unumprovident Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by94 opinions
- Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
- Mentor Graphics Corporation v. Eve-Usa, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Versata Software, Inc. v. Sap America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.