Legal Opinion
Steelcase Inc. v. Haworth, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Decided February 5, 1997No. 1:96cv 406PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SCOVILLE, United States Magistrate Judge.
This is a patent infringement action. Plaintiff, Steelcase Inc., contends that defendant, Haworth, Inc., has willfully infringed three Steelcase patents covering office chairs. As a consequence of the allegedly willful infringement, Steelcase seeks enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. In response to the claim for enhanced damages, Haworth has asserted its good-faith reliance on the advice of counsel. This court has already ruled that Haworth’s assertion of the advice-of-eounsel defense constitutes a waiver of the attorney-client…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- The Read Corporation and F.T. Read & Sons, Inc. v. Portec, Inc., D/B/A Portec/kolberg DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Manufacturing Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- John A. Bott and Jac Products, Inc. v. Four Star Corporation, a Michigan CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & JohnsonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1976
- Nike Incorporated v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., Brooks Shoe, Inc., and Brooks Sports, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- In Re Echostar Communications CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Dunhall Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Discus Dental, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1998
- Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. v. General Scanning, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1997
- Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2001
- Simmons, Inc. v. Bombardier, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2004
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.