Legal Opinion
Rohm and Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided February 2, 1987No. Civ. A. 78-384-JLL, 79-397-JLLPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LATCHUM, Senior District Judge.
This dispute began when Rohm and Haas Company (“Rohm & Haas”) filed Civil Action No. 78-384 which seeks a declaratory judgment that a patent held by Mobil Oil Corporation (“Mobil”), 1 United States Patent No. 3,979,437 (“437 patent”), is invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. (Docket Item [“D.I.”] I.) 2 Mobil counterclaimed for infringement and seeks treble damages against Rohm & Haas. (D.I. 14.) Additionally, Mobil filed Civil Action No. 79-397 against Rohm & Haas. This infringement action involves the same patents and patent applications…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Underwater Devices Incorporated v. Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. v. Lester A. Haug, Don W. Schmid and Herman GuntherCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Swofford v. B & W, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
- Ralston Purina Company v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Milgo Electronic Corporation, a Florida Corporation v. United Business Communications, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, DefendantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1980
- Great Northern Corporation v. Davis Core & Pad Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Johns Hopkins University v. CellproDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1995
- Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- THK America, Inc. v. NSK Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1993
- Foseco, Inc. v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1991