Ardisam, Inc. v. Ameristep, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
CRABB, District Judge.
In this civil action for declaratory, monetary and injunctive relief, plaintiffs Ardi-sam, Inc. and Spring Form, Inc. contend that defendants Ameristep, Inc., Hunter’s View, Ltd. and Eastman Outdoors infringed plaintiffs’ U.S. Patent No. 5,038,812 (the ’812 patent), by making, using, selling and offering for sale hunting blinds that utilize and embody the patented invention. The ’812 patent discloses a “quickly erecta-ble, quickly collapsible,' self supporting portable structure.” Plaintiffs bring their claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Jurisdiction is…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Vaupel Textilmaschinen Kg and Vaupel North America v. Meccanica Euro Italia S.P.A. And American Trim Products, Inc., Defendants/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Pfeil v. RogersCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- Fannie B. Kalis v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Millen True Value Hardware and Millen HardwareCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- Heller Financial, Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- NEXT Millennium Telecom Co v. American Signal CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2022