Legal Opinion
General Electric Company v. Wilkins
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided May 8, 2014No. 2013-1170PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Thomas A. Wilkins (“Wilkins”) appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California entering declaratory judgment in favor of General Electric Company and GE Wind Energy, LLC (collectively “GE”) that Wilkins is not a coinventor of GE’s U.S. Patent 6,921,985 (the “'985 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256. See Gen. Electric Co. v. Wilkins, No. 10-0674, 2012 WL 5989349 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 29, 2012) (unpublished). Because Wilkins failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was entitled to co-inventorship of the '985…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Richard C. Price v. Dale R. SymsekCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Ethicon, Inc. And Inbae Yoon, M.D. v. United States Surgical Corporation and Young Jae ChoiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Eli Lilly and Company v. Aradigm Corporation, Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Baxter International, Inc., and Baxter Healthcare Corporation v. McGaw Inc., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Fina Oil and Chemical Co. And Fina Technology, Inc. v. John A. Ewen v. Abbas Razavi, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Duncan Parking Technologies v. Ips Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019
- Sionyx, LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.District Court, District of Columbia · 2018
- Vapor Point LLC v. MoorheadCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute v. Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2020
- Sionyx, LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.District Court, District of Columbia · 2018
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.