MOORE

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1990)
  …d an act of infringement, see § 271(a), even if it was for the sole purpose of conducting tests and developing information necessary to apply for regulatory approval. See Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, cert. denied, 469 U. S. 856 (1984).3 Since that activity could not be commenced by those who planned to compete with the patentee until expiration of the entire patent term, the patentee’s de facto monopoly would continue for an often substantial period until regulatory approv…
• H.H. Robertson v. United Steel Deck, Inc., 820 F.2d 384 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
  …ion, committed an error of law, or seriously misjudged the evidence.” Smith International, 718 F. 2d at 1579, 219 USPQ at 691. See also Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, 865, 221 USPQ 937, 942 (Fed Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 856, 105 S.Ct. 183, 83 L.Ed.2d 117, 225 USPQ 792 (1984) (“trial court ... has considerable discretion in determining whether ... to issue an injunction”). The district court applied to Robertson’s motion the Third Circuit standard: An applicant for a…
• Amstar Corp. & Enviro-Clear Co., Inc. v. Envirotech Corp. & Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 823 F.2d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
  …c. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F. 2d 995, 1002, 228 U.S.P.Q. 562, 567 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 3275, 91 L.Ed.2d 565 (1986), Roche Prod., Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, 865, 221 U.S.P.Q. 937, 942 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 856, 105 S.Ct. 183, 83 L.Ed.2d 117 (1984). We may reverse the district court’s denial only if Amstar shows that the district court abused its discretion. Windsurfing Int’l, 782 F. 2d at 1002, 228 U.S.P.Q. at 567. [*1549] Amstar argues, in essence, that…