Legal Opinion
Bondyopadhyay v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided January 18, 2017No. 14-147CPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Patent Infringement; 28 U.S.C. § 1498; Claim Construction; Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art; Preamble; Ordinary and Customary Meaning; Specification.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION AND ORDER
MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS, Judge
In this action, Plaintiff pro se Dr. Probir K. Bondyopadhyay, the inventor of United States Patent No. 6,292,134 (“the ’134 Patent”) for a “Geodesic Sphere Phased Array Antenna System,” claims that the United States Air Force (“Air Force”) infringed his patent by using and manufacturing a portion of a phased antenna array system. This matter comes before the Court for…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Innova/pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc. (Doing Business as Safari Outdoor Products)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bondyopadhyay v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2018
- Bondyopadhyay v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2020