Legal Opinion

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided September 13, 1989No. C-86-20406 RPAPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FIRST CORRECTED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THEREON

AGUILAR, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) claims defendant Bausch & Lomb (“B & L”) infringed United States Patent No. 4,384,298 issued to Lawrence LaBarre et al. (the “LaBarre patent”). H-P is the owner, by assignment, of the LaBarre patent. In its counterclaim, B & L asserts the invalidity of the patent as obvious from prior art and further asserts that the inventor failed to disclose the best mode of carrying out his invention. 1

After a six-week court trial, the parties submitted…

2Cases cited12 opinions

Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
Spectra-Physics, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Coherent, Inc., Appellant/crossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/hydrocurve, Inc., and Barnes-Hind International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
Studiengesellschaft Kohle Mbh, as Trustee for the Max-Planck-Institut Fur Kohlenforschung v. Eastman Kodak CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980

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

3Cited by2 opinions

Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Medical Engineering Corp.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1992