Legal Opinion
Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex International, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided September 16, 2005No. 2005-1006PublishedCited by 52 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1345Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge PROST.
DYK, Circuit Judge.
Free Motion Fitness, Inc. (formerly known as Ground Zero Design Corporation) (“Free Motion”) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah holding that Cybex International, Inc. (“Cybex”) and The Nautilus Group, Inc. (formerly known as Direct Focus, Inc.) and Nautilus Human Performance Systems, Inc. (collectively “Nautilus”) did not infringe the claims of United States Patent Nos. 6,238,323 B1 (the “ ’323 patent”) and 6,458,061 B2 (the “…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Renishaw Plc v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni and Marposs CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Liebel-Flarsheim Company and Mallinckrodt Inc. v. Medrad, Inc., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal Ig CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Linear Technology Corp. v. International Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.