Legal Opinion
Intamin, Ltd. v. Magnetar Technologies, Corp. [Corrected Cover Sheet on 04/26/07]
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided April 18, 2007No. 2005-1546PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RADER, Circuit Judge.
On summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Magnetar Technologies, Corp. (Magnetar) does not infringe Intamin, Ltd.’s (Intamin’s) U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350 (the '350 patent). In-tamin appeals that ruling. Magnetar appeals the district court’s order vacating a previous award of Rule 11 sanctions. Upon consideration of the claim terms on appeal, this court vacates part of the district court’s claim construction and remands. This court also affirms the district court’s decision to vacate the Rule 11 sanctions.
I
The…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Mentor Graphics Corporation v. Eve-Usa, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- 800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Securities, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Baran v. Medical Device Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Thermolife International LLC v. Gnc CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.