Legal Opinion
Cosden Oil & Chemical Co. v. American Hoechst Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided June 23, 1982No. Civ. A. 76-37PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STAPLETON, District Judge.
These are consolidated actions involving the validity, infringement, ity of United States Patents No. 3,868,434 (“ ’434 patent”) and No. 3,996,311 (“ ’311 patent”), which issued to Richard C. Westphal (“Westphal”) and Paul Heinig (“Heinig”). Cosden Oil and Chemical Company (“Cosden”) originally filed this suit asking for a declaratory judgment that the patents in suit are in val id, unenforceable and not infringed. It has since added allegation of fraud on the Patent Office. American Hoechst Corporation (“AHC”), as successor to Foster Grant Co., 1 the original…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Delong Corporation v. Raymond International, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- Application of Viktor PapeschCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Application of Newsome W. GayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Monsanto Company v. Rohm & Haas CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Friction Division Products, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1987
- E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1987
- SMITHKLINE BEECHAM, CORP. v. Apotex Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2001
- American Cyanamid Co. v. United States Surgical Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1992
- Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC v. Henkel Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1982
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.