Legal Opinion
Lemelson v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided October 4, 1985No. Nos. 414-79C, 415-79CPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER
SETO, Judge.
In this patent infringement action under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, plaintiff has moved for voluntary dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and without award of costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into by plaintiff and the government. Third-party defendants, Bendix Corp. and Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Co., oppose plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that any such dismissal should be conditioned on plaintiff’s payment of their costs, expenses and attorney’s fees. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal is…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Jerome H. Lemelson v. The United States, the Bendix Corporation and Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Rolls-Royce Limited, Derby, England, a British Company v. The United States and United Aircraft Corporation, Defendant-IntervenorUnited States Court of Claims · 1966
- Bowser, Inc. v. The United States and General Steel Tank Co., Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Colton v. Huntleigh USA Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
- Prowest Diversified, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998
- Intertech Licensing Corp. v. Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1989
- Thornton-Trump v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1987
- Avocent Redmond Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.