Legal Opinion
Lockformer Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided March 24, 2003No. 99-C-6799PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ST. EVE, District Judge.
The Lockformer Company (“Lockformer”) filed suit seeking inter alia a declaration that use of its machinery with RL-50 desiccant does not infringe PPG Industries Ohio, Inc.’s United States Patent No. 5,177,916 (the “ ’916 patent”) and that the patent is invalid or unenforceable. PPG Industries, Inc. (“PPG Industries”) and PPG Industries Ohio, Inc. (“PPG Ohio”) (collectively “PPG”) moved for partial summary judgment on all counts of unen-forceability and invalidity except obviousness. Lockformer and TruSeal Technologies, Inc. (“TruSeal”)…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Tranquil Prospects, Ltd.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2003
- The BRAUN CORP. v. Maxon Lift Corp.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2003