Legal Opinion
Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co.
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided March 27, 2009No. 1:07cv897 (LMB/TCB)PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LEONIE M. BRINKEMA, District Judge.
Plaintiff Matthew A. Pequignot (“Pequignot”) has filed this action for false patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292. In the complaint, Pequignot alleges that defendant Solo Cup Company (“Solo”) falsely marked several of its products with expired patent numbers and improperly marked other products with conditional patent markings. Solo has filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, arguing that Pequignot lacks standing to bring suit under Article III of the United States Constitution. 1 Alternatively, Solo argues that…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. StevensSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. HY-Grade Valve, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2011
- Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Luka v. Procter and Gamble Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011
- Rogers v. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- Pequignot v. SOLO CUP COM.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.