Legal Opinion
View Engineering, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Systems, Inc., and Morrison Law Firm
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided March 31, 2000No. 99-1399PublishedCited by 68 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MICHEL, Circuit Judge.
The Morrison Law Firm (“Morrison”) appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California sanctioning Morrison under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See View Eng’g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., No. CV 95-1882 (C.D.Ca. Apr. 14, 1999). On March 24, 1995, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker, on behalf of View Engineering, Inc. (“View”), filed a claim for declaratory relief against Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. (“Robotic”) seeking to have Robotic’s U.S. Patent No. 4,238,147 (“the ’147 patent”) declared…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- In Re Matter of Stephen Yagman, Jerry Brown and Gerry Fleischer v. Michael Baden and Sidney WeinbergCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Loretta J. Brokeshoulder SCHWARZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by68 opinions
- Hall v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- Superior Fireplace Company v. The Majestic Products Company and Vermont Castings, Inc., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Power Mosfet Technologies, L.L.C. v. Siemens AGCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Q-Pharma, Inc. v. The Andrew Jergens CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Applegate v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.