Legal Opinion
Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided December 17, 1987No. Civ. A. No. 85-71040PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FEIKENS, District Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action against defendants for infringement of his patent, a device for shoes designed to aid traction for quick turns or cuts during outdoor athletic activity.
On February 4, 1986, I entered a Memorandum Opinion granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. I held that there was no literal infringement and that the doctrine of file wrapper estoppel prevented a finding of infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents. Badalamenti v. Dunham’s, Inc., No. 85-71040, mem. op. at 3-6 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 4, 1986) [available on…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Herbert v. LandoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Anthony Fox v. Studebaker-Worthington, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1975
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1979
- Airtex Corporation, and Cross-Appellee v. Shelley Radiant Ceiling Company, and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
- Bell v. Automobile ClubDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1978
3Cited by5 opinions
- Michael J. Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., Kinney Shoe Corporation, and Hyde Athletic Industries, Inc., Defendants/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Laukus v. Rio Brands, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2013
- John B. v. GoetzDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2010
- Jackson v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1988
- Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1989