Legal Opinion
Marsh-Mcbirney, Inc. v. Montedoro-Whitney Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided September 25, 1989No. 88-1318, 88-1344, 88-1421, 88-1450 and 88-1598PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MAYER, Circuit Judge.
Marsh-McBirney, Inc. sued Montedoro-Whitney Corporation for infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 4,083,246, for a flow rate meter. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. 86-3022, found that Montedoro-Whit-ney devices with electromagnetic probes were infringing but devices equipped with acoustic probes were not. The court issued a permanent injunction against Montedoro-Whitney prohibiting production of the in-, fringing devices and awarded Marsh-McBirney $1.8 million in damages. We dismiss Montedoro-Whitney’s appeals of the…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. New York Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Hybritech Incorporated v. Abbott LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- United States v. IndrelunasSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Atlas Powder Company v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company and Alamo Explosives Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Welch III v. Cadre CapitalCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Renishaw Plc, Renishaw Plc v. Carl Zeiss Stiftung and Carl Zeiss, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Atlanta Motoring Accessories, Inc. v. Saratoga Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Micro Motion, Inc. v. Exac Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1991
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.