1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 393 F.3d
  5. 393 F.3d 1366 (2005)
 

BUSINESS OBJECTS, S.A. v. MICROSTRATEGY

No. 04-1009.

393 F.3d 1366 (2005)

BUSINESS OBJECTS, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROSTRATEGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: January 6, 2005.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Daniel J. Furniss, Townsend and Townsend and Crew, LLP, of Palo Alto, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel on the brief were Joseph A. Greco and Gregory S. Bishop.

Peter E. Moll, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were James F. Valentine and Matthew E. Hocker of Menlo Park, California; and Richard L. Stanley of Houston, Texas.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

RADER, Circuit Judge.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered summary judgment that MicroStrategy, Inc.'s products do not infringe claims 1, 2 and 4 of Business Objects' U.S. Patent No. 5,555,403 (issued Sept. 10, 1996) ('403 patent) either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Business Objects, S.A. v. Microstrategy, Inc., 280 F.Supp.2d 1000 (N.D.Cal.2003) (Summary...

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