Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
RADER, Circuit Judge.
Following a bench trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held U.S. Patent No. 5,311,951 (the '951 patent) invalid for no-nenablement and indefiniteness. Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake, No. 4:96-CV-726-Y, 1999 WL 1466752 (N.D.Tex. Sept. 21, 1999) ([UPRC). The trial court also determined that Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Chesapeake Operating, Inc., and Chesapeake Exploration Limited Partnership (collectively Chesapeake) did not infringe the '951 patent. Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC), the owner of the '951 patent, challenges…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. And E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Hollister IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Molins Plc, and John Coventry Smith, Jr. v. Textron, Inc., Kearney & Trecker Corporation, and Avco CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Moleculon Research Corporation v. Cbs, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Lubbock Feed Lots, Inc., and Lockney Cooperative Gin v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- S3 Incorporated, (Now Known as Sonicblue, Inc.) v. Nvidia CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2011
- Competitive Technologies v. Fujitsu Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 2003
- ISCO International, Inc. v. Conductos, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2003
- Union Pacific Resources Company v. Chesapeake Energy CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.