Sparton Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAMICH, Chief Judge.
On October 3,1997, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Invalidity, wherein Defendant asserted that Plaintiff, Sparton Corporation (“Sparton”), could not recover under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) because Sparton’s patents numbered 3,921,-120 (“the T20 patent”) and 4,029,233 (“the ’233 patent”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In opposition, Sparton contends that experimental use negates the statutory bar of section 102(b). Moreover, Spar-ton claims that the patented inventions were not offered for sale prior to the critical date. Two oral…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik Ag v. Murata MacHinery Ltd., and Murata of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sparton Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009