1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 301 F.3d
  5. 301 F.3d 1343 (2002)
 

IN RE CRUCIFEROUS SPROUT LITIGATION

No. 02-1031.

301 F.3d 1343 (2002)

In re CRUCIFEROUS SPROUT LITIGATION. Brassica Protection Products LLC and Johns Hopkins University, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Sunrise Farms, Becky Crikelair, and Frank Crikelair, Defendants-Appellees, and Edrich Farms Inc., Edward B. Stanfield, III, Edward F. Stanfield, Jr., Richard Stanfield, and Sally F. Stanfield, Defendants-Appellees, and Banner Mountain Sprouts, Banner Mountain Sprouts Inc., and Lawrence Ravitz, Defendants-Appellees, and Harmony Farms, Greg Lynn, and Lorna Lynn, and International Specialty Supply and Robert L. Rust, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Rehearing and Rehearing Denied September 30, 2002.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

E. Anthony Figg, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were Joseph A. Hynds and Mark I. Bowditch.

Joseph A. Kromholz, Ryan, Kromholz & Manion, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief for defendants-appellees Sunrise Farms, et al. was Daniel R. Johnson. On the brief for defendants-appellees Harmony Farms, et al. was Delbert J. Barnard, Barnard & Pauly, P.S. On the brief for defendants-appellees Edrich Farms Inc., et al. was Philip M. Andrews, Kramon & Graham, P.A., of Baltimore, Maryland. On the brief for defendants-appellees Banner Mountain Sprouts, et al. was Donald W. Ullrich, Jr., The Ullrich Law Firm, of Sacramento, California.

Before CLEVENGER, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied September 30, 2002.

PROST, Circuit Judge.

Brassica Protection Products LLC and Johns Hopkins University (collectively "Brassica") appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granting summary judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,725,895 ("the '895 patent"), 5,968,567 ("the '567 patent"), and 5,968,505 ("the '505 patent") are invalid as anticipated by the prior art. In re Cruciferous...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases