Legal Opinion
Pirelli Cable Corp. v. Ciena Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided February 18, 1998No. CIV. A. 96-625 MMSPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MURRAY M. SCHWARTZ, Senior District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Pirelli Cable Corporation (“Pirelli”) filed a complaint against Ciena Corporation (“Cie-na”) alleging infringement of five of its United States Patents concerning fiber optic technology. See Docket Item (“D.I.”) 1, at ¶ 1. Ciena answered Pirelli’s complaint and brought a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the patents in suit are invalid and not infringed by Ciena, and joined Counter Defendants Pirelli S.p.A., Pirelli Cavi S.p.A. and Pirelli General pic. D.I. 9, at ¶ 19. 1 Subsequently, two of the patents in suit, U.S.…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Dentsply International, Inc. v. Kerr Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1999
- Schering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1998
- LifeScan, Inc. v. Home Diagnostics, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2000
- StairMaster Sports/Medical Products, Inc. v. Groupe Procycle, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1998
- Hastings v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007