Legal Opinion
Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 15, 2007No. Civil Action 04-3925Published
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge. •
Presently before this Court is Defendant Woodstream Corporation’s (“Wood-stream”) Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and in the Alternative, for Remittitur and for a New Trial. For the following reasons, this Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Agrizap, Inc. (“Agrizap”) brought suit against Woodstream for patent infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 5,949,636 entitled “portable pest electrocution device with resistive switch trigger” (“636 patent” or “Rat Zapper”). Agrizap also alleged related state…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Gibbs v. ErnstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Amhil Enterprises Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., Dba Wawa Food Market, and M & N Plastics, Inc. And Ivonis MazzaroloCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.