Legal Opinion
British Telecommunications PLC v. Prodigy Communications Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 22, 2002No. 00 Civ. 9451(CM)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
MCMAHON, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff British Telecommunications (“BT”) asserts that Defendant Prodigy Communications Corp. (“Prodigy”), through its business activities as an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), directly infringes claims 3, 5, 6, and 7 (the “Asserted Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 4,873,662 (the “Sargent Patent” or “ ’662 Patent”). BT also alleges that Prodigy induces and contributes to infringement by Prodigy subscribers who infringe the Sargent patent by accessing the Internet through the Prodigy service.
The Court has…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Vargas v. TranseauDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2007
- Moody v. MorrisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Nassau Precision Casting Co. v. Acushnet Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2015
- Serby v. First Alert, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2015