Legal Opinion
Coconut Grove Pads, Inc. v. Mich & Mich TGR, Inc.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided September 30, 2016No. 15-CV-2158 (KAM)(GRB)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
Coconut Grove Pads, Inc. (“CGP”) commenced this action principally seeking a declaratory judgment that U.S. Reissue Patent No. 43,766 (the “ ’766 Patent” or the “patent-in-suit”) is invalid and not infringed by CGP. The patent-in-suit is for a bra strap retainer, and CGP named as defendants the owner of the ’766 Patent, Mich & Mich TGR Inc.; inventor Michelle Ostaseski; and Mich & Mich principal Michael Hayes (collectively, “Mich & Mich”). Mich & Mich asserted a counterclaim alleging that CGP infringed the ’766 Patent.1 *229CGP has moved…
2Cases cited66 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- American Technical Ceramics Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2019
- Pado, Inc. v. SG Trademark Holding Co LLCDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2021