Legal Opinion

BASF Corp. v. Aristo, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana

Decided May 29, 2012No. 2:07 CV 222 PPSPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*762 OPINION AND ORDER

PHILIP P. SIMON, Chief Judge.

In 1999, a predecessor company to BASF Corporation received U.S. Patent No. 5,866,210 (“the '210 Patent”), a new process for coating catalytic converter substrates. The patent doesn’t expire until 2016. In 2006 Aristo, Inc., working with its consultant Victor Rosynsky, designed and built a machine that also coats catalytic converter substrates. The problem is that Rosynsky was one of the named inventors on the '210 Patent. This got BASF’s attention and it ultimately resulted in BASF bringing this action against Aristo and Rosynsky for patent…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
  5. Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik Ag v. Murata MacHinery Ltd., and Murata of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
  2. Leading Technology Composites, Inc. v. MV2, LLCDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2020
  3. VRG Controls, LLC v. Valpres SRLDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API