1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 415 F.3d
  5. 415 F.3d 1278 (2005)
 

SANDISK CORP. v. MEMOREX PRODUCTS, INC.

Nos. 04-1422, 04-1610.

415 F.3d 1278 (2005)

SANDISK CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEMOREX PRODUCTS, INC. (formerly doing business as Memtec Products, Inc.), Defendant-Appellee, and Pretec Electronics Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Power Quotient International Co., Ltd., Defendant, and Ritek Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 8, 2005.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Thomas H. Jenkins, of Washington, DC, and Erik R. Puknys, of Palo Alto, California. Of counsel on the brief were Michael A. Ladra and James C. Yoon, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C., of Palo Alto, California; and Michael A. Berta and Ariana M. Chung-Han, of San Francisco, California.

Jon B. Streeter, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, of San Francisco, California, for defendant-appellee Memorex Products, Inc. (formerly doing business as Memtec Products, Inc.). Of counsel was G. Whitney Leigh.

Ronald C. Finley, Mount & Stoelker, P.C., of San Jose, California, argued for defendant-appellee Pretec Electronics Corporation. With him on the brief were Daniel S. Mount, Alfredo A. Bismonte, and Justin T. Beck.

Alan D. Smith, Fish & Richardson P.C., of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for defendant-appellee Ritek Corporation. With him on the brief was Charles H. Sanders.

Before RADER, GAJARSA, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

SanDisk appeals the district court's judgment of no infringement in favor of Memorex, Pretec, and Ritek. The district court granted summary judgment that various Flash memory devices made by these defendants did not infringe independent claims 1 or 10—or various claims depending therefrom—in SanDisk's U.S. Patent No. 5,602,987 to Flash EEprom systems. The trial court ruled that the claims at bar did not contemplate or allow for...

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