Legal Opinion
Gould v. General Photonics Corp.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided March 1, 1982No. C-78-1670 SCPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CONTI, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This case came on regularly to be heard on February 8, 9, and 10, 1982, before the court sitting without a jury. The plaintiffs were represented by the firm of Lerner, David, Littenberg & Samuel, and the defendant was represented by James Hagan, Esq.
Plaintiff Gordon Gould holds a patent for optically pumped laser amplifiers issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 11, 1977 (No. 4,053,845). He alleges that the defendant has infringed and continues to infringe on this patent (the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Western States MacH. Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Saf-Gard Products, Inc. v. Service Parts, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- Eversharp, Inc. v. Fisher Pen Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1961
- Berry Brothers Corporation, and Cross-Appellee v. Paul L. Sigmon, Trading as Sigmon Hosiery Manufacturing Company, and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1963
- Neff Instrument Corp. v. Cohu Electronics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- King Instrument Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Otari Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Gordon Gould v. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Honorable Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, in His Official CapacityCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
- Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1986
- Patlex Corp., Inc. v. MossinghoffDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
- Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dorel Industries Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2006