Legal Opinion
Mott Corp. v. Sunflower Industries, Inc.
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided December 23, 1964No. KC-920PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ARTHUR J. STANLEY, Jr., Chief Judge.
The plaintiffs, successful parties in this protracted patent-infringement litigation, have moved the court to award the attorneys’ fees incurred in the course of the litigation. Defendants deny that the plaintiffs should receive an award of attorneys’ fees; and plaintiffs, in turn, deny that the question is now open for consideration.
This court’s memorandum of decision, entered April 3, 1961, (217 F.Supp. 559, 566 (D.Kan.1961)) ruled, in part, that;
“The court has discretion * * * pursuant to 35 U.S.C.A. § 285 to award reasonable attorney fees. The award of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pacific Contact Laboratories, Inc. v. Solex Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
- Merrill v. Builders Ornamental Iron Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1952
- Mott Corporation and C. W. Mott Research Engineers v. Sunflower Industries, Inc. And Owen Murrell CrumpCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1963
- Servo Corp. v. General Electric Co.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1963
- Mott Corp. v. Sunflower Industries, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1961
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kori Corp. v. Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1982
- Petersen v. Fee International, Ltd.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1974