Legal Opinion · Dissent

The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided November 28, 2012No. 2011-1576Published

1DissentO’Malley, Circuit Judge

I agree that Cree, Inc. (“Cree”) reduced its invention to practice before Fox Group, Inc. (“Fox”) did so. Although my reasons for reaching this conclusion differ somewhat from those articulated by the majority, I agree that, in 1995, Cree grew a silicon carbide (“SiC”) material that met uniquely low defect density thresholds and appreciated the qualities the material possessed. These facts are sufficient, in my view, to establish Cree’s prior reduction to practice.1 Despite this threshold agreement with the majority’s reasoning, however, I dissent from the judgment the majority enters; I do…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Apotex Usa, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
  2. Yoshihiro Fujikawa, Mikio Suzuki, Hiroshi Iwasaki, Mitsuaki Sakashita and Masaki Kitahara v. Sompong Wattanasin, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
  3. The International Glass Company, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969
  4. The Dow Chemical Company v. Astro-Valcour, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
  5. Palmer v. DudzikCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API