Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a “motion to clarify, vacate, or modify” its injunction when that court had impermissibly expanded its scope to cover certain extraterritorial activity
• holding permanent injunction not violated because accused infringer's acts did not take place within the United States
• holding permanent injunction not violated because accused infringer’s acts did not take place within the United States

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).