Legal Opinion

Fina Technology, Inc. v. Ewen

District Court, N.D. Texas

Decided July 29, 1994No. 3:93-cv-02529PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KENDALL, District Judge.

NOW before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on March 7, 1994, Defendant’s response to the motion, Plaintiffs’ reply to the response, the response of Abbas Razavi to the motion and Defendant’s supplemental response containing excerpts from Razavi’s deposition. Having considered these filed materials, the summary judgment evidence and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ motion should be, and hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

FACTS

This is a patent suit. The patents at issue…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Avia Group International, Inc., (Formerly Pensa, Inc.) v. L.A. Gear California, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  5. Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corporation, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Abbott GmbH & Co. v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2012
  2. Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1996
  3. Boynton v. HEADWATERS, INC.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2010
  4. Philip Boynton v. Headwaters IncCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
  5. Kucharczyk v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1999

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API