Legal Opinion
GNB Battery Technologies, Inc. v. Exide Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided February 10, 1995No. Civ. A. 88-407-RRMPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
McKELVIE, District Judge.
In this patent case, the defendants have moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b). The facts of this case are more fully set forth in the court’s Opinion of February 10, 1995, 876 F.Supp. 582, on defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial. The parties have briefed the issue and this is the court’s decision on defendants’ motion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 18, 1988, GNB Battery Technologies, Inc. (“GNB”), owner of United States Patents 4,6fe,725 (“the ’725 patent”) and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corporation, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
- Panduit Corporation v. Dennison Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Skidmore v. Baltimore & OR Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1999
- GNB Battery Technologies, Inc. v. Exide Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1995