Legal Opinion
Exergen Corp. v. Brooklands Inc.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided August 28, 2015No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-12243-DPWPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this action, Exergen Corporation alleges that Brooklands, Inc. has infringed United States Patent No. 7,787,938 (“'938 patent”) by selling infrared thermometers. Brooklands moves for summary judgment on the affirmative defenses that the '938 *310patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (unpatentable subject matter), § 102 (anticipation), and §-103 (obviousness). Brooklands also moves for Rule 11 sanctions against Exergen and its counsel, Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP (“Sunstein”). . .
I. BACKGROUND
■ Exergen asserts that…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Bilski v. KapposSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Diamond v. DiehrSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Broadband ITV, Inc. v. Oceanic Time Warner Cable, LLCDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2015
- Listingbook, LLC v. Market Leader, Inc.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2015
- SkillSurvey, Inc. v. Checkster LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
- Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2017
- Exergen Corp. v. Brooklands Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2018
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.