Legal Opinion
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd.
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided February 24, 1994No. Civ. A. G-92-499PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
KENT, District Judge.
The Plaintiffs (collectively, “Celanese”) brought this suit for a declaration that their operations for the production of acetic acid do not infringe United States Patent No. 5,003,104 (“the ’104 patent”). The ’104 patent is owned by Defendant BP Chemicals (“BP”). BP has counterclaimed for infringement, seeking over $180,000,000 in damages. Before the Court are Celanese’s motions for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) the patent is invalid, and (2) they are licensed to use the patent, and BP’s motion to open and close the…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Reilly v. Rangers Management, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1987
- City of Pinehurst v. Spooner Addition Water Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1968
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Biacore, AB v. Thermo Bioanalysis Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1999
- Carnegie Mellon University v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2001
- Intel Corp. v. NEGOTIATED DATA SOLUTIONS, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2010