Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
MDS (Canada) Inc. v. Rad Source Technologies, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided July 1, 2013No. 11-15145Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPryor, Circuit Judge
I agree with the majority opinion that we have jurisdiction to decide this appeal, that Article 3.1 is not ambiguous, and that the third sentence of Article 3.1 does not preclude Rad Source from the development or marketing of the RS 3400 because the RS 3400 does not embody, in whole or in part, the patents. I also agree that the district court did not clearly err when it found that the failure of Rad Source to maintain the ’255 patent was not a material breach of the agreement and that Rad Source did not unreasonably refuse consent to the proposed assignment of the license agreement from…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004
- Silverberg v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- Continental Cas. Co. v. Ryan Inc. EasternSupreme Court of Florida · 2008
- Department of Revenue v. Bank of AmericaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
- Acosta v. District Bd. of TrusteesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.