Legal Opinion
Intamin, Ltd. v. Magnetar Technologies Corp.
District Court, C.D. California
Decided May 22, 2009No. Case CV 04-0511 GAF (JWJx)PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GARY ALLEN FEESS, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
In 2004, Plaintiff Intamin, Ltd. filed this lawsuit alleging a braking system manufactured by Defendant Magnetar Technologies Corp. infringes Intamin’s U.S. Patent Number 6,062,350 (“the '350 patent”), titled “Braking System for an Amusement Device,” which describes a magnetic braking system used on amusement park rides. Magnetar moved for summary judgment of non-infringement; Judge Taylor, then assigned to the case, granted the motion and entered judgment for Magnetar.…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Richardson v. Trustees of Indiana University (In re Richardson)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Indiana · 2013
- Magnetar Technologies Corp. v. Intamin, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Bangkok Broadcasting & T v. Co. v. IPTV Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2010
- Robocast, Inc. v. Apple Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2014
- Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 2014
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.