Legal Opinion
Waterloo Furniture Components, Ltd. v. Haworth, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided June 18, 1992No. 91 C 3433PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MORAN, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Waterloo Furniture Components, Ltd. (Waterloo) filed this declaratory judgment action against defendant Ha-worth, Inc. (Haworth), owner of U.S. Patent No. 4,616,798 (’798 patent), asking this court to find that the ’798 patent is invalid and unenforceable, and that Waterloo did not infringe the patent claims. In its answer, Haworth admitted charging Waterloo with infringing the ’798 claims and filed a counterclaim charging infringement. 1 Waterloo now moves for summary judgment, alleging that claims 22 and 31 through 38 of the ’798 patent are…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- The Laitram Corporation and Intralox, Inc. v. Rexnord, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center and Custom Form Manufacturing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- CellNet Data Systems, Inc. v. Itron, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1998
- Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 2006
- Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap SarlDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2004
- Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc. v. Michael Foods, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.