Legal Opinion
Refac Electronics Corp. v. a & B Beacon Business MacHines Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 30, 1988No. 85 Civ. 8563 (RWS)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendant Sears, Roebuck & Co. (“Sears”) has moved for partial summary judgment against plaintiffs Refac Electronics Corporation and Refac Technology Development Corporation (collectively “Refac”) pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. Refac has cross moved for sanction against Sears pursuant to Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P. For the reasons set forth below both the motion and the cross motion are denied. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Refac is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 3,955,355 (“355”). That patent pertains to an electronic calculator watch. 1 355, along with other patents,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Knight v. U.S. Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Dunlap v. SchofieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Wine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Lemelson v. Fisher Price Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1982
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wokas v. Dresser Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1997
- T.D. Williamson, Inc. v. LaymonDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1989
- At & T CORP. v. Microsoft Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2003