Legal Opinion
Wooster Brush Co. v. Newell Operating Co.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided April 6, 1999No. 5:98-cv-02356PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
GWIN, District Judge.
On March 1, 1999, Plaintiff Wooster Brush Co. moved this Court for summary judgment [Doc. 27]. In seeking summary judgment in this patent infringement action, Plaintiff Wooster Brush argues that no material facts support Defendant-Counterplaintiff Newell Operating Company’s claim that Wooster Brush infringes United States Patent Number 5,195,242 (the ’242 patent).
Because the Court finds no material facts supporting Defendant Newell’s counterclaim alleging infringement, the Court grants Plaintiff Wooster Brush’s motion for summary judgment.
I. Background of…
2Cases cited24 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
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dovala v. TimDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2020