Legal Opinion
Ceeco MacHinery Manufacturing, Ltd. v. Intercole, Inc.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided November 16, 1992No. Civ. A. 91-40019-XXPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS
WOODLOCK, District Judge.
In 1989, the defendant Intercole purchased wire manufacturing equipment allegedly infringing the plaintiff Ceeco’s patent. Ceeco sued for injunctive and monetary relief under the patent laws and ch. 93A. Intercole has moved for summary judgment, asserting that Ceeco had not complied with marking/notice requirements that are a prerequisite to the recovery of damages. For purposes of these motions, Intercole does not challenge the fact of infringement. Ceeco has cross moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it did furnish the appropriate…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Gerald Griggs-Ryan v. Beulah Smith, Gerald Griggs-Ryan v. Richard ConnellyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- John A. Bott and Jac Products, Inc. v. Four Star Corporation, a Michigan CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Dunlap v. SchofieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Curtis Manufacturing Co. v. Plasti-Clip Corp.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1994
- Von Holdt v. A-1 Tool Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010
- Endress + Hauser, Inc. v. Hawk Measurement Systems Pty. Ltd.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1995
- ADC Telecommunications, Inc. v. Siecor Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1997
- F.B. Leopold Co. v. Roberts Filter Manufacturing Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.