Legal Opinion
Colgate Palmolive Co. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 27, 1996No. Civil Action 95-2101(JCL)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LIFLAND, District Judge.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (“Gore”) moves for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of Colgate Palmolive Company’s (“Colgate’s”) ’488 patent, contending that its beeswax-coated Glide dental floss does not literally infringe the ’488 patent and invoking the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel (also known as “file wrapper estop-pel”) to parry Colgate’s assertion of infringement by the doctrine of equivalents. Colgate counters that it surrendered no claim coverage during the prosecution history, or at a minimum, fact questions abound on this question,…
2Cases cited25 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
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Baxa Corp. v. McGaw, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1997
- Isham v. Pillowtex Corp.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2000