Legal Opinion
Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Decided September 28, 2026No. 1:20-cv-00352Unknown
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN INLAND DIAMOND PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 20-C-352 CHERRY OPTICAL, INC., Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Eyeglasses are not a new invention. Plaintiff Inland Diamond Products Co. (Inland) claims, however, that it is the owner of two patents that teach a novel way of securely situating plastic lenses in eyeglass frames. Inland accuses Defendant Cherry Optical, Inc. (Cherry), of infringing its patents,
U.S. Patent No. 8,636,360
(the ‘360 patent) and
U.S. Patent No. 9,405,130
(the ‘130 patent),…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.