Legal Opinion · Dissent
Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided January 29, 2003No. Nos. 01-1449, 01-1583, 01-1604, 01-1641, 02-1174 and 02-1192Published
1DissentProst, Circuit Judge
I respectfully dissent from section IV of the majority’s opinion reversing the district court’s denial of Rambus’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of fraud. In my opinion, substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Rambus committed actual fraud under Virginia state law.
“The species of fraud are numberless, and like a chameleon, fraud is always colored by the context from which it arises. For that reason, it is usually for the jury to determine from the facts of a specific case, whether a fraud was committed.” Hirschberg v. G.W. Motors, Inc., 34 Va. Cir. 55, 60,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Hybritech Incorporated v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- The Perkin-Elmer Corporation, a Corporation of New York v. Computervision Corporation, a Corporation of DelawareCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Howard A. Fromson v. Western Litho Plate and Supply Co. And Bemis Company, Inc., Defendants/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Shell Petroleum, Inc., and Subsidiary Corporations v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.