Case Citator › Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross

Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Federal Circuit
Citation
138 F.3d 1448
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
77 of 77
Citing cases (total)
1,536
Treatment dates
2015
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Cybor Corporation v. FAS Technologies, Inc. is overruled in part: all 77 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. displaced Cybor’s de novo review of subsidiary factual findings in patent claim construction.
More on how this was screened

De novo review of the ultimate legal construction remains. The other citing opinions applied Cybor, reported its treatment of older Federal Circuit decisions, rejected arguments against it, or reported Teva’s act.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

1,536 later cases cite Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross; 77 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court rejected Cybor’s de novo standard for subsidiary factual findings in patent claim construction and required clear-error review of those findings.

    Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Today's case involves claim construction with "evidentiary underpinnings." See Part III, infra. And, it requires us to determine what standard the Court of Appeals should use when it reviews a trial judge's resolution of an underlying factual dispute. Should the Court of Appeals review the district court's factfinding de novo as it would review a question of law? Or, should it review that factfinding as it would review a trial judge's factfinding in other cases, namely by taking them as correct "unless clearly erroneous?" See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a)(6). We hold that the appellate court must apply a "clear error," not a de novo, standard of review. ... At the same time, the Federal Circuit's efforts to treat factual findings and legal conclusions similarly have brought with them their own complexities. See e.g.,Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc.,138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (C.A.Fed.1998)(en banc) (claim construction does not involve "factual evidentiary findings" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)) ... Now that we have set forth whythe Federal Circuit must apply clear error review when reviewing subsidiary factfinding in patent claim construction, it is necessary to explain howthe rule must be applied in that context.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace