Legal Opinion
Business Objects, S.A. v. Microstrategy, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided January 6, 2005No. 2004-1009PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RADER, Circuit Judge.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered summary judgment that MicroStrategy, Inc.’s products do not infringe claims 1, 2 and 4 of Business Objects’ U.S. Patent No. 5,555,403 (issued Sept. 10, 1996) (’403 patent) either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Business Objects, S.A. v. Microstrategy, Inc., 280 F.Supp.2d 1000 (N.D.Cal.2003) (Summary Judgment Or der). Because the district court did not err in construing the asserted claims, this court affirms the district court’s ruling of no literal infringement of claims 1, 2…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- In re ABM Indus. Overtime Cases, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- TDM America, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.