Legal Opinion
Refac International Ltd. v. IBM
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided July 1, 1988No. Civ. A. 85-2020PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED OPINION
POLITAN, District Judge.
This case comes before this Court on a motion for summary judgment by the defendants, IBM et al. They allege that the patent at issue, the Cook patent # 3,612,687, is invalid because it fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112 1 , and 35 U.S. C. § 101-103. Additionally, defendants claim unenforceability of both the Cook and Nissman (patent #3,609,690) patents, on the grounds that both patents fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim what the inventors regard as their invention. 2 Defendants also allege that the Cook patent should fail because it…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Loctite Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Ultraseal Ltd., Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- White v. DunbarSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Merrill v. YeomansSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Glaxo, Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1993
- Ingersoll-Rand Financial Corp. v. Atlantic Management & Consulting Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1989
- Refac International, Inc. v. IBM Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1989
- Access Solutions International, Inc. v. Data/Ware Development, Inc.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1999
- Buehler AG v. Ocrim, S.P.A.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.