Legal Opinion
One-E-Way, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided June 12, 2017No. 2016-2105PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Dissenting opinion filed by Chief Judge PROST.
STOLL, Circuit Judge.
The International Trade Commission found the claim term “virtually free from interference” indefinite and invalidated the asserted claims of One-E-Way’s patents. Because we conclude that the term “virtually free from interference,” as properly interpreted in light of the specification and prosecution history, would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty, we reverse.
Background
I
One-E-Way filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission accusing, among…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Interval Licensing LLC v. Aol, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. ItcCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019
- Card-Monroe Corp. v. Tuftco Corp.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2017
- Mayborn Group, Ltd. v. ItcCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2020
- 10X Genomics, Inc. v. Parse Biosciences, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2024
- Berkheimer v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2022
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.