Legal Opinion

Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Foundry Networks, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided October 8, 2013No. Case No. 06-13936PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMENDED * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES (Doc. 240)

AVERN COHN, District Judge.

I. Introduction

This is a patent case. The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260 (the '260 Patent), Network Security System For Detecting Removal Of Electronic Equipment, and particularly Claim 17, which is dependent from Claim 14. In a prior case, the Court found Claim 1 of the '260 Patent invalid. Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 476 (E.D.Mich.2004).

On August 1, 2012, 2012 WL 3133897, the Court found Claim 17 invalid (Doc. 234), and…

2Cases cited22 opinions

Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
The Read Corporation and F.T. Read & Sons, Inc. v. Portec, Inc., D/B/A Portec/kolberg DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
Special Devices, Inc. v. Oea, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter ABCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

Mark Wolek v. Northern Ohio Surgery Center, LLC, Reuben Gobezie, and Mary MeierDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2025
Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLCDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2021