Skip to main content
Federal Circuit· 11/3/2009

Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

Citations

  • 586 F.3d 980
  • 92 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1664
  • 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24231
  • 2009 WL 3582310

How courts have described this case

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

  • characterizing a patent cross-license agreement as essentially “a promise by the licensor not to sue the .licensee” for infringement (citation omitted)
  • characterizing a patent cross-license agreement as essentially “a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee” for infringement (citation omitted)
  • “In reviewing a grant of judgment on the pleadings, this court applies the procedural law of the regional circuit.”
  • “In reviewing a 12 grant of judgment on the pleadings, this court applies the procedural law of the regional 13 circuit.”
  • “A proper interpretation of a contract generally assumes consistent usage of terms throughout the Agreement.”
  • court unwilling to resolve contract interpretation question based on section headings “where doing so would conflict with the plain reading of operative language elsewhere in the contract”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Amy, Bryson, Gajarsa, Eve

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.