Legal Opinion

Judin v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided July 18, 1994No. 573-89CPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BRUGGINK, Judge.

Pending in this patent proceeding is the motion of former Third-Party Defendant Hewlett-Packard Co. (“HP”) to renew its previously-filed motion for sanctions against plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant oppose the motion, although for different reasons.1 Oral argument is deemed unnecessary. For the following reasons, the motion to renew is denied.

This is an action by plaintiff to recover for alleged infringement by the government of his patent. HP voluntarily appeared in response to the government’s motion to notice pursuant to RCFC 14(a)(1). On February 17,1998, the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. M.A. Mortenson Company v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
  4. Judin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
  5. Lemelson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1985

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Judin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API