Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Kentucky
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.
Lexmark International, Inc.’s (“Lex-mark”) Motion for Summary Judgment of Direct Infringement of Nine Patents Against the Remanufacturers is before the Court for consideration. [R. 519]. For the reasons set forth below, Lexmark’s Motion will be granted in part and denied in part as follows: Lexmark breaks its motion down into three constituent elements of the cause of action of patent infringement. First Lexmark argues that the nine patents on which it bases its claims of infringement are valid. 1 Given an absence in the record of evidence to the contrary,…
2Cases cited47 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Auto. Body Parts Ass'n v. Ford Global Techs., LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2018
- Tactical Medical Solutions, Inc v. KarlDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2019