Legal Opinion
Hemphill v. Procter & Gamble Co.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided April 15, 2003No. CIV.A. DKC2002-3736PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHASANOW, District Judge.
Presently pending and ready for resolution are the motions for summary judgment of noninfringement filed by Defendants Kimberly-Clark Corporation (“Kimberly-Clark”) and The Procter & Gamble Co. (“Procter & Gamble”), as well as Defendants’ counterclaims for declaratory judgments of noninfringement. The issues have been fully briefed, and no hearing is deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For reasons that follow, the court shall grant Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismiss the counterclaims without prejudice.
I. Background
A. Procedural…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Bruce Beaudett v. City of Hampton City Attorneys A. Paul Burton and W. Stephen Moore Judge T.H. Wilson, II and Judge Nelson T. OvertonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hemphill v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Hemphill v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP.District Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Hemphill v. Johnson and JohnsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Hemphill v. Kimberly-Clark CorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009