Legal Opinion

Heinemann

United States Court of Claims

Decided January 30, 1981No. 202-79CPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This patent infringement suit1 is before the court on plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed in connection with this motion a request for deferred review of an order entered by Trial Judge Joseph V. Colaianni on July 24, 1980, which order denied the parties’ joint motion for separate trials. Pursuant to Rule 131(b), plaintiff and defendant moved for a separate trial in order to resolve initially the contested ownership issue and to consider defendant’s allegation that it is entitled to a royalty free license to practice the invention if plaintiff is adjudged to be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Woburn Degreasing Co. v. Spencer Kellogg & SonsDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1941
  2. Heinemann v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1980
  3. Cataphote Corporation v. DeSoto Chemical Coatings, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1964
  4. Ludlow Corp. v. Textile Rubber & Chemical Co.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1978

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Robert W. Heinemann v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
  2. Heinemann v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1984
  3. Heinemann v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API