WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION and Winbond Electronics North America Corporation, Appellants, and
Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., Appellant, and
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Appellant, and
Macronix International Co., Ltd. and Macronix America, Inc., Intervenors,
v.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, and
Atmel Corporation, Intervenor.
Atmel Corporation, Appellant,
v.
International Trade Commission, Appellee, and
Macronix International Co., Ltd. and Macronix America, Inc., Intervenors, and
Winbond Electronics Corporation and Winbond Electronics North America Corporation, Intervenors, and
Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., Intervenor, and
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Intervenor.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided August 22, 2001.
Decided August 22, 2001.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
E. Robert Yoches, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellants in 01-1031 and intervenors in 01-1128, Winbond Electronics Corporation, et al. With him on the brief were Doris Johnson Hines, and Kathleen A. Daley. Of counsel were Wayne W. Herrington, R. Bruce Bower, and Yitai Hu. Of counsel were Sturgis M. Sobin, and Frederick David Foster, Ablondi Foster, Sobin & Davidow, P.C., of Washington, DC.
Daniel Johnson, Jr., Fenwick & West LLP, of Palo Alto, California, argued for appellant in 01-1031 and intervenor in 01-1128, Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.
G. Brian Busey, Morrison & Foerster, LLP of Palo Alto, California, for appellant in 01-1031 and intervenor in 01-1128, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. Of counsel were Karl J. Kramer and Robert L. McKague.
Kirk R. Ruthenberg, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, of Washington, DC, argued for intervenors in 01-1031 and 01-1128, Macronix International Co., Ltd., et al. With him on the brief was Lisa Pandohie Johnson. Of counsel on the brief was Edward H. Rice, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, of Chicago, Illinois.
Timothy Monaghan, Attorney, U.S. International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee in 01-1031 and 01-1128, International Trade Commission. With him on the brief were Lyn M. Schlitt, General Counsel; Andrea C. Casson, Acting Deputy General Counsel; Michael Diehl, and Jean H. Jackson, Attorneys. Of counsel was James A. Toupin; and Clara Kuehn, Attorneys.
Robert T. Haslam, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP, of Menlo Park, California, argued for appellant in 01-1128 and intervenor in 01-1031, Atmel Corporation. With him on the brief were Stanley Young, and Andrew C. Byrnes. Of counsel on the brief were Louis S. Mastriani, and Michael L. Doane, Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg LLP, of Washington, DC, Of counsel was Nitin Subhedar.
Before CLEVENGER, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
RADER, Circuit Judge.
This opinion is issued pursuant to this court's Order of January 30, 2001.
Despite allegations of inequitable conduct, improper joinder, implied license, and waiver, the United States International Trade Commission undertook enforcement of Atmel Corporation's U.S. Patent No. 4,451,903 (the '903 patent). Because the Commission correctly rejected these challenges to the '903 patent, this court
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
