Legal Opinion
TurboCare Division of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Electric Co.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided March 31, 1999No. Civ.A. 95-30069-MAPPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
PONSOR, District Judge.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Neiman is hereby adopted in toto. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for unenforceability is hereby DENIED, and defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment for invalidity is ALLOWED. The clerk will set a date for a status conference to set a schedule for future proceedings.
MEMORANDUM REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF UNEN-FORCEABILITY OF US. PATENT NO.…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Thomas v. ArnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- United States v. Emiliano Valencia-CopeteCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1986
- Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1980
- Bruce W. KEATING, Sr., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Turbocare Division of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Electric Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2002