Legal Opinion
Freeman v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided August 29, 1988No. Civ. A. 84-577-CMWPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CALEB M. WRIGHT, Senior District Judge.
This patent infringement suit was brought by Dr. Jerre Minor Freeman against the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (“3M”) on October 5, 1984. Freeman asserts that Claims 1, 4, 10-11, and 21-22 of United States Reissue Patent No. 31,640 (“ ‘640 patent” or “reissue patent”), entitled “Buoyancy Intraocu-lar Lens Device,” are valid and that they were willfully infringed by 3M. Freeman also brought suit against CooperVision, Inc., for infringement of the same patent.
The suits were consolidated for purposes of discovery and trial on the issues…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re Jerre M. FreemanCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1997
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Nabisco Brands, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1989
- Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1991
- Innovative Scuba Concepts, Inc. v. Feder Industries, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1993