Legal Opinion

Australia Vision Services Pty. Ltd. v. Dioptics Medical Products, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California

Decided December 9, 1998No. CV 98-1976 RAP (JGx)PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE ’083 PATENT

PAEZ, District Judge.

I

Introduction

Plaintiff Australia Vision Services (“Vision Services”) brought this action for damages against defendants Dioptics Medical Products and Henry Lane (collectively “Dioptics”) alleging willful infringement of Design Patent No. 387,083 (“ ’083 patent”), issued December 2, 1997. The ’083 patent claim concerns the ornamental design for a pair of sunglasses that fit over prescription glasses. Vision Services asserts claims…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
  2. Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1999
  3. Isham v. Pillowtex Corp.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API