Highway Equipment Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Feco, Ltd. And Stan Duncalf

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• determining that a defendant was a prevailing party under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where a plaintiff dismissed a patent infringement action with prejudice
• explaining that district court’s exercise of discretion to grant dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) constitutes necessary judicial imprimatur to confer prevailing party status
• discussing the application of Eighth Circuit law to discretionary dismissal of patent claims under Rule 41(a)(2) following a covenant not to sue
• affirming finding of no intent where “the record shows that, at the time the patent was filed, [an alleged joint inventor] indicated that he should not be named as an inventor.”
• stating that a dismissal with prejudice is a judgment on the merits to determine the prevailing party for purposes of costs because it “terminates any claims the plaintiff may have had against the defendants arising out of this set of operative facts.” (citations omitted)
• discussing how “the voluntary filing of the covenant in this case was designed to be judicially enforceable and was the basis for the court’s order dismissing the claims with prejudice,” making the court’s decision “a disposition on the merits”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).