1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 424 F.3d
  5. 424 F.3d 1161 (2005)
 

PANDROL USA, LP v. AIRBOSS RY. PRODUCTS, INC.

No. 04-1069.

424 F.3d 1161 (2005)

PANDROL USA, LP and Pandrol Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AIRBOSS RAILWAY PRODUCTS, INC., Airboss of America Corp., Robert M. Magnuson, and Jose R. Mediavilla, Defendants-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

September 19, 2005.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Allen I. Rubenstein, Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C., of New York, New York, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief was Raymond B. Churchill, Jr.

Richard R. Johnson, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., of Kansas City, Missouri, argued for defendants-appellants.

Before CLEVENGER, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

RADER, Circuit Judge.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Pandrol USA, LP and Pandrol Ltd. (Pandrol) because Airboss Railway Products, Inc., Airboss of America Corp., Robert M. Magnuson, and Jose R. Mediavilla (Airboss) did not produce clear and convincing evidence that U.S. Patent No. 5,110,046 (the '046 patent) is invalid. Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., No. 99-0182-CV-W-SOW (W.D.Mo...

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