Legal Opinion
Boydstun Metal Works, Inc. v. Cottrell, Inc.
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided September 7, 2007No. 3:06-mj-00500PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (# 113) on April 13, 2007, in which he recommended the Court deny the Motion for Summary Judgment (# 71) of Defendant Cottrell, Inc., as moot with respect to Claims 18-26 and 28 of the 7,025,547 Patent (’547 Patent); deny Cottrell’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 71) as to Claims 27 and 29 of the '547 Patent; and grant Plaintiff Boydstun Metal Works, Inc.’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (# 81) as to Cottrell’s “on sale bar” defense in which Cottrell asserts it offered the claimed invention for sale more than…
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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Taylor v. ListCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- William Leer Robert Larry Emerhiser v. Al Murphy Darrell Gardner Arvin AraveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Lightforce USA, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2020
- Orbis Corp. v. Rehrig Pacific Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2013
- ST Corp. v. LopezSuperior Court of Guam · 2019
- Taylor Corporation v. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LPDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2020