Pandrol Usa, Lp and Pandrol Limited v. Airboss Railway Products, Inc., Airboss of America Corp., Robert M. Magnuson, and Jose R. Mediavilla

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “the first appeal to this court was from a final judgment” and analyzing whether the court had jurisdiction over the subsequent appeal at issue
• holding an argument is “waived when it [is] not raised in response to the motion for summary judgment”
• noting that “whether an order constitutes a final judgment depends upon whether the judge has or has not clearly declared his intention in this respect in his opinion” (internal quotations omitted)
• noting that “defendants’ waiver of the defense of lack of patent ownership did not waive the defendants’ ability to challenge the plaintiffs’ standing to sue . . . at any stage of the litigation”
• observing for purposes of final judgment that “[w]hat essentially is required is some clear and unequivocal manifestation by the trial court of its belief that the decision made ... is the end of the ease” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• \Supreme Court precedent and our cases make clear that patent infringement and patent validity are treated as separate issues.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).