Legal Opinion

Linzer Products Corp. v. Sekar

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided July 23, 2007No. 06 Civ. 13218(SAS)PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Chandra Sekar (“Sekar”) invented an inexpensive industrial process for manufacturing plastic paint rollers. -In 1996, Sekar was awarded a patent (the “'790 Patent”) for this invention, giving him the right to exclude others from using his process (the “'790 process”) to manufacture paint rollers. 1 In 1998, Sekar entered into a license agreement (the “Agreement” or “1998 Agreement”) with Linzer Products Corporation (“Linzer”), a manufacturer of paint rollers, permitting Linzer to use his '790 process in exchange for royalties. 2…

2Cases cited48 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Ben Gary Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
  4. Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  5. United States v. Grinnell Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Spinelli v. National Football LeagueDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015
  2. In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2019
  3. FT Travel-New York, LLC v. Your Travel Center, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
  4. BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AG v. Sandoz, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2011
  5. A.V.E.L.A., Inc. v. Estate of Marilyn Monroe, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2017

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

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

Powered by the Exa API