Skip to main content
· 6/6/2001

Federal Case

Citations

  • 252 F.3d 1039
  • 2001 Daily Journal DAR 5693
  • 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4600
  • 59 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1097
  • 44 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 639
  • 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 11750

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that it has been held “on numerous occasions ... that the Patent Act preempts ... state law that grants patent-law protection to a product”
  • “[W]e presume that words used more than once in the same statute have the same meaning throughout.”
  • “[F]ederal copyright laws ensure predictability and certainty of copyright ownership . . . .” (quoting In re Peregrine Entm’t, Ltd., 116 B.R. 194, 199 (C.D. Cal. 1990)
  • “We review for abuse of discretion orders granting relief from an automatic stay.”
  • standard of review for orders granting relief from an automatic stay
  • using statute’s title as an interpre- tation tool

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.