Legal Opinion
In Re Stuart R. Meyers Patent Litigation
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 6, 1990No. MDL No. 777. Nos. 88 Civ. 7401 (RO), 88 Civ. 7404 (RO) and 89 Civ. 5699 (RO)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
OWEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Stuart Meyers holds three patents for cushioned running shoe insole designs, issued in 1981, 1984 and 1986 respectively. The issue raised by this motion is whether plaintiff’s patent claims against these two shoe manufacturers, Hyde Athletic Industries and Asics Corporation, and against Asics Tiger Corp. (“ATC”), a retailer and subsidiary of Asics, are barred by laches and equitable estoppel. In a related suit by plaintiff alleging patent infringement by two other manufacturers, this Court granted summary judgment for defendants based on laches…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H. v. Dart Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Lukens Steel Co. v. American Locomotive Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
- The Standard Oil Company v. Nippon Shokubai Kagaku Kogyo Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Lemelson v. Carolina Enterprises, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stuart R. Meyers v. Asics Corp., and Asics Tiger Corp., and Hyde Athletics IndustriesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Giese v. Pierce Chemical Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1998
- Pecorino v. Vutec Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2013