Legal Opinion
Halliburton Co. v. Schlumberger Technology Corp.
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided October 25, 1989No. Civ. A. H-85-5464PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LAKE, District Judge.
The Court has found that Halliburton’s patents are unenforceable because of inequitable conduct, and Schlumberger now seeks reimbursement of the attorneys' fees and expenses it incurred in defending what it contends is an “exceptional case” under 35 U.S.C. § 285. To obtain such relief Schlumberger must establish, by proof of clear and convincing evidence, both that the case is exceptional and that the Court should exercise its discretion to award attorneys’ fees and expenses. Reactive Metals & Alloys Corp. v. ESM, Inc., 769 F.2d 1578, 1582…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Mathis v. SpearsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Reactive Metals and Alloys Corporation v. Esm, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Park-In-Theatres, Inc. v. PerkinsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
- Rohm & Haas Company v. Crystal Chemical Company and Joe C. EllerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Creative Internet Advertising Corp. v. Yahoo! Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2010
- Tarkett, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994