Legal Opinion
In Re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided February 1, 1993No. Misc. No. 85-14. MDL Docket No. 623PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LONGOBARDI, Chief Judge.
I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The International Trade Commission (“ITC”) action which is the subject of the current motion was filed by Plaintiff Diversified Products (“DP”) in December, 1984. DP’s complaint in that action alleged that Defendant Weslo committed acts constituting unfair trade practices in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by importing goods which infringed its 4,477,071 (the “ ‘071 patent”) patent. Defendant Weslo responded to that complaint by asserting, inter alia, that the ’071 patent was invalid and not infringed. The Administrative Law…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Tonka Corp. v. Rose Art Industries, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1993
- Australia Unlimited, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- Australia Unlimited, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd. v. Jazz Photo Corp. Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2001
- Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. McVay (In re McVay)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · 2012
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.