Legal Opinion
911EP v. Whelen Engineering Co., Inc.
District Court, E.D. Texas
Decided March 23, 2007No. 1:05-cv-00137PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
T. JOHN WARD, District Judge.
After considering the submissions and the arguments of counsel, the Court issues the following order concerning the claim construction issues:
I. Introduction
Plaintiff 911EP, Inc. (“911EP”) accuses Defendants .Whelen Engineering Co., Inc. (“Whelen”), Federal Signal Corporation (“FSC”), Tomar Electronics, Inc. (“To-mar”), and Code 3, Inc. (“Code 3”) of infringing nine patents, .United States Patent Numbers 6,424,269 (“the '269 patent”); 6,788,217 (“the '217 patent”); 6,504,487 (“the '487 patent”); 6,822,578 (“the '578 patent”); 6,930,615…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Innova/pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc. (Doing Business as Safari Outdoor Products)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Laboratoires Perouse v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2007
- Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device U.S. Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2018
- Markem-Imaje Corp v. Zipher Ltd.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2011