Legal Opinion
Diversified Products Corp. v. Weslo Design International, Inc.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided July 23, 1985No. Civ. A. No. 85-119 MMS. Master File No. Misc. 85-14. MDL No. 623PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MURRAY M. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The question presented is whether an order should be entered staying or suspending an ongoing investigation by the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”), by reason of parallel patent litigation in the district court. The investigation was initiated by a complaint filed with the ITC in December, 1984, by Diversified Products Corporation (“Diversified”) against ten respondents, one of whom is Weslo Design International, Inc. (“Weslo”), the movant in these…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Richard Lawrence Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Stevenson v. International Trade CommissionCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- Beloit Corporation, Complainant-Appellant v. Valmet Oy, Tvw Paper MacHines Inc., United States International Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Farrel Corporation v. United States International Trade Commission, and Pomini Farrel S.P.A. And Pomini, Inc., IntervenorsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- In Re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Lit.District Court, D. Delaware · 1985