12 Sep 2011 by C. Allen Black, Jr.
MARKEM-IMAJE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ZIPHER LTD. AND VIDEOJET TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants-Appellants (2010-1305) Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire ...
4 Apr 2012 by mstein03
By Zi Wang In Markem-Imaje Corp. v. Zipher Ltd., 657 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit per curiam majority overturned the district court's claim construction and summary judgment of noninfringement.
9 Sep 2011 by Justin E. Gray
Markem-Imaje Corp. v. Zipher Ltd. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2011). In this case, the patent at issue related to devices for transfer printing, a process where ink is carried by a ribbon that is moved into contact with the substrate to be ...
10 Sep 2011 by Patent Hawk
Markem-Imaje v. Zipher and VideoJet Technologies (CAFC 2010-1305) precedential; Judges Newman (dissent), Clevenger and Linn (per curiam). Per curiam decisions are typically unanimous and unrevealing. ... Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.
, 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). The grant of summary judgment also receives plenary review. On our holding that "drive" is properly construed to mean the application of torque to the spools, whether the ...
12 Sep 2011 by admin
This entry was posted on Monday, September 12th, 2011 at 8:50 am and is filed under Federal Circuit. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not ...
15 Sep 2011 by Ryan Alley
Federal Circuit per curiam decisions are most commonly Rule 36 affirmances, non-precedential opinions and orders, and shorter, unanimous precedential opinions, so it is a little strange to see Markem v. Zipher, a .... Zipher argued that this
interpretation imported an unnecessary limitation into the claims, and, even if tension measurement was required to make the claim work, an infringing device need not include the limitation under Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Tech.