U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1994

In re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. Larsen

In re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. Larsen
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided July 29, 1994 · Plage, Archer, Rich, Nies, Newman, Mayer, Michel, Plager, Lourie, Clevenger, Rader, Schall
33 F.3d 1526; 31 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1545; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 21129; 1994 WL 395740 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Alexander C. Johnson, Jr., Marger, Johnson, McCollom & Stolowitz, P.C., Portland, OR, argued for appellants. With him on the brief was Peter J. Meza. Also on the brief was Francis I. Gray, Tektronix, Inc., Wilson-ville, OR. Allen M. Sokal, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, of Washington, DC, argued for amicus curiae, Federal Circuit Bar Association. With him on the brief were Gerald H. Bjorge, Herbert H. Mintz and George E. Hutchinson., Fred E. McKelvey, Solicitor, Office of the Sol., Arlington, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Lee E. Barrett and Richard E. Schafer, Associate Sol. Of counsel were Albín F. Drost and John W. Dewhirst., Herbert C. Wamsley and Richard C. Witte, Intellectual Property Owners, Inc., Washington, DC, were on the brief for ami-cus curiae, Intellectual Property Owners, Inc., Richard H. Stern, Graham & James, Washington, DC, was on the brief for amicus curiae, Seagate Technology, Inc. Also on the brief was Edward P. Heller, III, Patent Counsel., Fred I. Koenigsberg and Nancy J. Linck, Cushman, Darby & Cushman, Washington, DC, were on the brief for amicus curiae, American Intellectual Property Law Association. Also on the brief were Harold C. Weg-ner and H. Ross Workman, Wegner, Cantor, Mueller & Player, Washington, DC. Of counsel was William S. LaFuze.

In re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. Larsen

Cases that cite this one

82 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Concurring in Part

Concurring Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.