Legal Opinion
Stillman v. Edmund Scientific Co.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided September 2, 1975No. Nos. 74-1864 to 74-1868PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FIELD, Circuit Judge:
In these patent cases the district court made an award of attorney fees and costs to the defendants pursuant to both 35 U.S.C. § 2851 and Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court assessed the fees and costs not only against the non-prevailing plaintiffs, Frank J. and Marie Kaehni, but jointly and severally against their attorney, Edward I. Stillman. Stillman has filed these appeals challenging the district court’s assessment of fees and costs *800as against him. We conclude that such fees and costs were improperly assessed against the appellant under 35…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Monolith Portland Midwest Company, a Nevada Corporation v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
- Kaehni v. Diffraction CompanyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1972
- Brunswick Corp. v. Chrysler Corp.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1968
- Powerlock Systems, Inc. v. Duo-Lok, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1972
- Kaehni v. Diffraction CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Julie Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Julie Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- The Black Panther Party v. William French Smith, Attorney General of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981
- Deyo v. KilbourneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Weisberg v. WebsterCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Loctite Corporation v. Fel-Pro, Inc. And Felt Products Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.