Akari Imeji Co. v. Qume Corp.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
NORGLE, District Judge.
Before the court are three motions: plaintiff Akari Imeji Company’s (“AIC”) motion for default judgment, and defendant Casio Computer Ltd.’s (“Casio Computer”) motions to set aside entry of default, and to quash service of process. For the reasons discussed below, AIC’s motion is denied and both of Casio Computer’s motions are granted.
FACTS
On January 23, 1989, AIC filed suit against defendant Qume Corporation (“Qume”), alleging that Qume had infringed Patent No. 3,824,604 entitled “Alphanumeric Printing System Employing Liquid Crystal Matrix” (the “Stein Patent”).…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. SchlunkSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Maunder v. DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd.Illinois Supreme Court · 1984
- Slates v. International House of Pancakes, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1980
- United States v. NuttallDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1988
- Schlunk v. Volkswagenwerk AktiengesellschaftAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. MaynardWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1993
- Chung Ex Rel. Estate of Chung v. Tarom, S.A.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1998
- In Re Subpoena to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010
- Federal Equipment Corp. v. Puma Industrial Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1998
- Blake v. Celebrity Home Loans, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2024
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.