Legal Opinion
Intirtool, Ltd. (Doing Business as Mass-Tex, Ltd.) v. Texar Corporation (Doing Business as Toolpro, Inc.)
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided May 10, 2004No. 03-1394PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LINN, Circuit Judge.
In this patent infringement case, Intir-tool, Ltd. (“Intirtool”) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Intirtool, Ltd. v. Texar Corp., No. 4:00cv118 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 31, 2003). The district court found that Intirtool’s United States Patent No. 5,022,253 (“the '253 patent”) was invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1, and concluded that the patent was also unenforceable because Intirtool had committed inequitable conduct during its prosecution. Id. at 13-14.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v. coolsavings.com, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Atd Corporation v. Lydall, Inc., Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Ave, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Serdarevic v. Advanced Medical Optics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N v. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Marrin v. GriffinCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Maytag Corp. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2006
- Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2006
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.