Legal Opinion
Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 12, 2006No. Civil Action 04-3925PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff Agrizap, Inc. (“Agrizap”) alleges that Defendant Woodstream Corporation (“Woodstream”) infringed on its U.S. Patent No. 5,949,636 entitled “portable pest electrocution device with resistive switch trigger” (“636 patent” or “Rat Zapper”). Presently pending before this Court are: (1) the claim construction of the 636 patent; and (2) Woodstream’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of patent unenforceability and invalidity. For the following reasons, Woodstream’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The relationship…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
- Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006