Legal Opinion
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided April 5, 1988No. C-84-20642 RPAPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER RE SEVERAL MOTIONS AND SETTING TRIAL SCHEDULE
AGUILAR, District Judge.
On March 18,1988, the Court entertained plaintiff Hewlett-Packard’s (“HP”) motion for summary judgment against defendant Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (“B & L”) on the validity of the defendant’s patent, Re. No. 31,684 (the “Yeiser reissue patent”). After reviewing the papers and hearing the argument of counsel, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted. The affidavits of patent agent Lawrence Fleming submitted by B & L are grossly inaccurate. Had the patent examiner been apprised of the true state of facts, he would…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gage v. HerringSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Kangaroos U.S.A., Inc. v. Caldor, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Foxboro Co. v. Taylor Instrument CompaniesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- General Radio Co. v. Allen B. Du Mont Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
- Ruth E. Riley v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., a Corporation (Formerly Broadway Department Store, Inc., a Corporation)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Johnson v. MorthamDistrict Court, N.D. Florida · 1996
- Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1993
- Johnson v. MorthamDistrict Court, N.D. Florida · 1996