Legal Opinion
California Eastern Laboratories, Inc. v. Gould
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 16, 1990No. Nos. 88-15014, 89-15226PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CANBY, Circuit Judge:
Harry Gould appeals the decisions in two cases that have been consolidated on appeal. In the first case, the district court held that California Eastern Laboratories (CEL) has a shop right in a patent owned by Gould. In the second, the court dismissed counts in Gould’s complaint which charged CEL with violations of the antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2 and Ariz. Rev.Stat. §§ 44-1402 and 44-1403. Gould also seeks attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. We affirm the decisions of the lower court in both actions and deny attorneys’ fees.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
These…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Edward Ashton v. Kenneth CoryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Rutman Wine Company v. E. & J. Gallo WineryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- United States v. Dubilier Condenser CorpSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Ppg Industries, Inc., (77-3166), (77-3167) v. Guardian Industries Corporation, (77-3166), (77-3167)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & DicusMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
- Interspiro USA, Inc. v. Figgie International, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1993
- Nickolas John Andrade v. United States Sentencing CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- In Re CFLC, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1994
- Avtec Systems, Inc. v. PeifferDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.