Legal Opinion
Tm Patents v. IBM
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 28, 2000No. 97 CIV. 1529(CM)(MDF)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER DISPOSING OF ALL PENDING MOTIONS
McMAHON, District Judge.
The various pending motions are disposed of as follows:
1. TM’s motion for Leave to Rely on the Statement of Ethan Miller is granted, and IBM’s cross-motion to strike the statement is denied.
2. IBM’s motion for summary judgment relating to the ’342 patent is denied, on the ground that there are myriad disputed issues of material fact, almost all of them concerning the question of substantial equivalence under the Doctrine of Equivalents. As a jury has been demanded, only a jury can resolve the conflicting views of the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Manville Sales Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Paramount Systems, Inc., Robert S. Butterworth and Anthony J. DisimoneCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Continental Can Company Usa, Inc. And Continental Pet Technologies, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, Hoover Universal, Inc. And Johnson Controls, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Bayer Ag and Bayer Corporation v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corporation and Elan Corporation, PlcCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- P.M. Palumbo v. Don-Joy Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- TM Patents, LLP v. International Business MacHines Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- Noe v. Ray RealtyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020