E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Company, Defendant/cross-Appellant. Basf Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company

Federal Circuit

E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Company, Defendant/cross-Appellant. Basf Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company

92 F.3d 1208, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 25895

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedJuly 17, 1996

Docket96-1025

StatusUnpublished

This text of 92 F.3d 1208 (E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Company, Defendant/cross-Appellant. Basf Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Company, Defendant/cross-Appellant. Basf Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, 92 F.3d 1208, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 25895 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

92 F.3d 1208

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant/Cross-Appellant.
BASF CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant,
v.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Defendant/Appellant.

Nos. 95-1537, 96-1025 and 96-1027.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 17, 1996.

Before ARCHER, Chief Judge, MICHEL, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

ARCHER, Chief Judge.

DECISION

E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding its United States Patent No. 5,108,684 (the Anton patent) invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Monsanto Company cross-appeals the court's judgment that it infringes and induces infringement of the Anton patent. Similarly, BASF Corporation cross-appeals the court's judgment that it induces infringement of the Anton patent. We affirm the judgment insofar as it holds the Anton patent invalid for obviousness.

DISCUSSION

All of the arguments raised by the parties on appeal concerning the obviousness of and the infringement of the Anton patent were thoroughly considered and analyzed in the district court's comprehensive, well-reasoned opinion. See E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Monsanto Co., 903 F.Supp. 680 (D.Del.1995). Finding no reversible error in the court's analysis or conclusions as to the obviousness of the invention claimed in the Anton patent, the judgment as to that issue is affirmed on the basis of the court's opinion. This affirmance renders moot the cross-appeals of Monsanto Company and BASF Corporation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

92 F.3d 1208

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant/Cross-Appellant.
BASF CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant,
v.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Defendant/Appellant.

Nos. 95-1537, 96-1025 and 96-1027.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 17, 1996.

Before ARCHER, Chief Judge, MICHEL, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

ARCHER, Chief Judge.

DECISION

E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding its United States Patent No. 5,108,684 (the Anton patent) invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Monsanto Company cross-appeals the court's judgment that it infringes and induces infringement of the Anton patent. Similarly, BASF Corporation cross-appeals the court's judgment that it induces infringement of the Anton patent. We affirm the judgment insofar as it holds the Anton patent invalid for obviousness.

DISCUSSION

All of the arguments raised by the parties on appeal concerning the obviousness of and the infringement of the Anton patent were thoroughly considered and analyzed in the district court's comprehensive, well-reasoned opinion. See E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Monsanto Co., 903 F.Supp. 680 (D.Del.1995). Finding no reversible error in the court's analysis or conclusions as to the obviousness of the invention claimed in the Anton patent, the judgment as to that issue is affirmed on the basis of the court's opinion. This affirmance renders moot the cross-appeals of Monsanto Company and BASF Corporation.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 F.3d 1208, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 25895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ei-dupont-de-nemours-and-company-v-monsanto-company-cafc-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack