Legal Opinion
Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California
Decided June 4, 1981No. Civ. S-78-86 LKK, S-77-387 LKKPublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
KARLTON, District Judge.
Plaintiff in the above-entitled related actions is the owner of United States Patent No. 235,819 (’819), which is the patent on the shoe sole design used on the plaintiff’s shoes marketed as the “Hi There” style. In these related suits the plaintiff has alleged that defendants have infringed upon its patented design for shoe soles. The matters are now before the Court on the following motions of the parties:
1. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff’s patent is obvious and therefore invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
2.…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Hamilton C. Bushie and Doris Ann Bushie v. Stenocord CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
- Boxall v. Sequoia Union High School DistrictDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1979
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Neveu v. City of FresnoDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2005
- Jensen v. Quality Loan Service Corp.District Court, E.D. California · 2010
- Sanchez v. City of FresnoDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2012
- Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. MusacchioDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1988
- Gregory Village Partners, L.P. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2011
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.