Legal Opinion
General Electric Co. v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided November 9, 1988No. Civ. A. 87-458 JRRPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROTH, District Judge:
General Electric Company (“GE”) charges in this suit that Hoechst Celanese Corporation (“HCC”) and Celanese Engineering Resins, Inc. (“CER”) have infringed GE’s U.S. Patent No. 3,953,394 (“ ’394 Patent"). The patent, asserting forty claims, covers a plastic made of a mixture of polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”) and polybutylene terephthalate (“PBT”). HCC and CER answered and counterclaimed for a declaration of noninfringement, invalidity and unenforeeability of GE’s patent. In addition, HCC and CER individually and jointly have now filed motions for…
2Cases cited20 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
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Anthony J. Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., a Delaware Corporation. Appeal of Anthony J. ChipolliniCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- The Laitram Corporation v. Nec Corporation, Nec Information Systems, Inc., and Sears, Roebuck and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Immunex Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- General Electric Co. v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1990
- Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1990
- Toro Co. v. INGERSOLL-RAND CO., LTD.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2008