Legal Opinion
Inpro, Inc. v. AW Chesterton Co., Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided March 30, 1987No. 85 C 8477PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BUA, District Judge.
This order concerns defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Defendant maintains that Claims 1, 2, and 4 of plaintiffs’ U.S. Patent No. 4,022,479 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) and 35 U.S.C. § 112 (failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which constitutes the invention). For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion is granted.
I. FACTS
Plaintiffs Inpro, Inc. (Inpro) and David Orlowski, President of Inpro (Orlowski), instituted this action against defendant A.W. Chesterton Company, Inc.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Environmental Designs, Ltd. And the Trentham Corporation v. Union Oil Company of California and Ralph M. Parsons Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sandra Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000