Legal Opinion
Preemption Devices Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 26, 1985No. Civ. A. 80-0268PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILES, District Judge.
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (“3M”) has initiated contempt proceedings against Preemption Devices, Inc. (“PDI”), seeking various court-imposed sanctions for PDFs allegedly willful and knowing violation of the injunction previously issued by this court on April 26,1983. Specifically, 3M contends that PDI has sold the OE-29 emitter, the OR-l/OR-2 optical detector, and the PSO-1 phase selector into infringing systems. Further, 3M asserts that PDI has made, intends to make, and has sold or intends to sell the LS-164 optical emitter, the…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- United States v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Hughes Aircraft Company v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Preemption Devices, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Arthrocare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2004
- Doss v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1980