Legal Opinion
In Re Inland Steel Company
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided September 19, 2001No. 00-1143PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRYSON, Circuit Judge.
On reexamination of a patent owned by Inland Steel Company, the Patent and Trademark Office rejected all the claims of Inland’s U.S. Patent No. 4,421,574 (“the '574 patent”) as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Inland has appealed with respect to nine of the claims. We affirm.
I
The '574 patent issued in 1983. In 1991, Inland sued USX Corporation and LTV Steel Company, Inc., alleging infringement of the '574 patent. While that lawsuit was pending, USX and LTV filed requests for reexamination of the '574 patent. The Patent and Trademark Office granted those requests, and the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- Pro-Mold and Tool Company, Inc. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Ryko Manufacturing Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- In Re Werner KotzabCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- In Re Ben HuangCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
- Inland Steel Company v. Ltv Steel Company, and Usx CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2023
- Genzyme Corp. v. ATRIUM MEDICAL CORP.District Court, D. Delaware · 2004
- ANCHOR WALL SYSTEMS v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.