Legal Opinion
Intex Recreation Corporation v. Team Worldwide Corporation
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided September 24, 2013No. Civil Action No. 2004-1785PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs objections to Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson’s claim construction decision. Plaintiff Intex Recreation Corporation asserts that Judge Robinson misconstrued the terms “socket” and “pump body”, as used in the air mattress patent owned by defendant Team Worldwide Corporation. After careful consideration of the arguments made in the parties’ papers and at oral argument, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court sets aside in part and adopts in part…
2Cases cited27 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
- Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Toomer v. PanettaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017
- Nunnally v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017
- Intex Recreation Corporation v. Team Worldwide CorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Intex Recreation Corporation v. Team Worldwide CorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Midwest Athletics and Sports Alliance LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.