Legal Opinion
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided April 13, 1987No. Civ. A. CA 3-85-1539-GPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER
FISH, District Judge.
This case is before the court on the motion of Raychem Corporation (“Raychem”) to dismiss defendant’s counterclaims against it in this action. After reviewing the motion, response, memoranda, affidavits, and exhibits, the court has concluded that Raychem’s motion should be granted, for the reasons stated below.
I. NATURE OF THE CASE
Plaintiff Procter & Gamble Company (“P & G”) seeks injunctive relief and damages against defendant Kimberly-Clark Corporation (“K-C”) on the ground that K-C has infringed Patent No. 3,639,917, entitled “Heat Recoverable Article,”…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Rude v. WestcottSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- E. W. Bliss Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- John R. Willingham, Star Cutter Company, Joined as v. Norman B. Lawton, and Star Cutter Company, PartyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977
- James K. Gilson v. Republic of IrelandCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1986
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1995
- Jones v. Cooper Industries, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1997
- Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1992
- Erbamont Inc. v. Cetus Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1989
- LG Electronics, Inc. v. Asustek ComputersDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.