Legal Opinion
Preemption Devices, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 18, 1983No. Civ. A. 80-0268PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
GILES, District Judge.
Preemption Devices, Inc. (“PDI”) seeks a declaration that United States Patent No. RE 28,100 is invalid. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (“3M”), the holder of the patent, counterclaims, alleging infringement. PDI admits that if the patent is valid, it is guilty of infringement. However, in support of the patent’s invalidity, PDI raises five arguments: (1) the invention was on sale in the United States for more than one year prior to the application date; (2) the invention was in public use in this country for more than one year prior to the…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Preemption Devices, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Preemption Devices, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Freeman v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1987
- Lyle/Carlstrom Associates, Inc. v. Manhattan Store Interiors, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1986
- Preemption Devices Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.