Legal Opinion
Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Z & J Technologies GmbH
District Court, C.D. California
Decided April 6, 2007No. CV 06-2402 SJO (JTLx)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER RE CURTISS-WRIGHT’S MOTION FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
S. JAMES OTERO, District Judge.
Plaintiff Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corporation (“Curtiss-Wright”) has brought this Motion for Claim Construe tion. This Court held a claim construction hearing on March 5, 2007, receiving attorney argument from both parties. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the definitions of Defendants Z & J Technologies GmbH and Zimmerman & Jansen, Inc. (collectively, “Z & J”) for the disputed terms.
In this patent suit, Curtiss-Wright alleges that Z & J infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,565,714 (“the '714…
2Cases cited30 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- ATLANTIC RESEARCH MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC. v. TroyDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2009
- CelLink Corp. v. Manaflex LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025