Legal Opinion
Andrew Corp. v. Cablewave Systems, Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided February 21, 1978No. Civ. No. N-74-124Published
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ “ON SALE” DEFENSE
ZAMPANO, District Judge.
In this action based on a claim of patent infringement, the plaintiff Andrew Corpo*174ration (“Andrew”) seeks injunctive and monetary relief against Cablewave Systems, Inc. (“Cablewave”) and Kabel-und Metallwerke Gutehoffnungshuette AG (“KM”). Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 281.
The defendants contend, among other defenses, that the patent in question was invalid because the invention was “on sale,” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), for a period of more than one year prior to the date of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Timely Products Corporation, Raphael J. Costanzo v. Stanley ArronCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- James C. Hobbs v. United States of America, Atomic Energy CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
- Cataphote Corporation, a Corporation v. De Soto Chemical Coatings, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- Systematic Tool & MacHine Company v. Walter Kidde & Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.