Legal Opinion
Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Injection Research Specialists, Inc.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided March 8, 2005No. CIV. 01-543 MJDRLEPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVIS, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recom mendation [Docket No. 646] (“the Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson, dated August 6, 2004, which considered cross-motions for summary judgment on several issues. The Report recommended that (1) Arctic Cat’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment based on Legal Estoppel be granted; (2) Arctic Cat’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with regard to IRS’s Claims of Willful Infringement be granted; and (3) the balance of motions for summary…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Gasser Chair Company, Inc., and George Gasser v. Infanti Chair Manufacturing Corp., and Vittorio InfantiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge Gmbh, Plaintiff-Cross v. Dana Corporation, and Haldex Brake Products Corporation, and Haldex Brake Products AbCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Janice E. Palesch v. Missouri Commission on Human RightsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000
- Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Laukus v. Rio Brands, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2013
- Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Carl E. Gungoll Exploration, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2005
- Dane Technologies, Inc. v. Gatekeeper Systems, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2015