Legal Opinion
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Nabisco Brands, Inc.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided April 4, 1989No. Civ. A. 84-333 LONPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LONGOBARDI, District Judge.
I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The Plaintiff Procter and Gamble (“P & G”) brought three separate actions against Defendant Nabisco Brands, Inc. (“Nabisco”), Defendant Keebler Company (“Kee-bler”) and Defendant Frito-Lay, Inc. (“Frito-Lay”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,455,333 (the “’333 Patent”), inducement of patent infringement and unfair competition. The complaint was filed on June 19, 1984, the date that the ’333 Patent was issued to P & G for a cookie invention by two of its employees, Charles A. Hong and William J. Brabbs. The…
2Cases cited73 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Honeywell International Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 2001
- Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1994
- Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- Mehl/Biophile International Corp. v. MilgraumDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- Abbott Laboratories v. Diamedix Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.