Legal Opinion

Toro Co. v. INGERSOLL-RAND CO., LTD.

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided April 20, 2008No. Civil File 06-3073 (MJD/AJB)Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER

MICHAEL J. DAVIS, District Court.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ joint request for claim construction pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). Plaintiff is The Toro Company (“Toro”). Defendant Clark Equipment Company is a subsidiary of Defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited (collectively, “Bobcat”). The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 6,709,223 (“'223 Patent”). Toro is the owner of the '223 Patent. In the instant lawsuit, Toro alleges that Bobcat loaders infringe claim…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
  3. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
  4. Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
  5. Autogiro Company of America v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API