Legal Opinion

Sule v. Kloehn Co., Ltd.

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided June 18, 2001No. CIV. A. 95-1090(HAA)Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ACKERMAN, District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56. The plaintiffs have moved for entry of summary judgment on their patent infringement claim. The defendant has moved for a determination of non-infringement and entry of summary judgment dismissing Count III of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. This court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1831 and 1338. For the reasons discussed below, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied and the defendant’s motion is…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
  5. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996

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

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

Powered by the Exa API