Legal Opinion
Parkson Corp. v. Andritz Sprout-Bauer, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 24, 1994No. 94 CIV 6076 (CBM)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MOTLEY, District Judge.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Parkson Corporation brings this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, and attorney’s fees based on claims of patent infringement. Plaintiff Parkson asserts that it has an exclusive license for Patent No. 4,126,546 and for Patent No. 4,197,201 (hereinafter the “Dynasand Filter Patents”) both of which relate to continuous sand filtration of liquids. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Andritz Sprout-Bauer (“ASB”) has infringed these patents by the manufacture, sale and installation of ASB’s “Hydrasand” filter,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Vaupel Textilmaschinen Kg and Vaupel North America v. Meccanica Euro Italia S.P.A. And American Trim Products, Inc., Defendants/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Capri Jewelry Incorporated and Tancer & Two, Inc. v. Hattie Carnegie Jewelry Enterprises, Ltd., and Bill G. JamesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2009
- Central Tools, Inc. v. Mitutoyo Corp.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 2005