Legal Opinion
McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided March 20, 2002No. 98-2225-JWLPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LUNGSTRUM, District Judge.
Plaintiff Michael L. McGinley charged defendant Frankin Sports, Inc. (“Franklin”) with willful infringement of claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,407,193 (“the '193 patent”). Plaintiffs patent has been found to be valid and infringed by the Franklin Pitch Ball Trainer 2705 (“the 2705 ball”) sold by defendant. McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2001). Plaintiff now seeks damages, including profits that it alleges it lost as a result of defendant’s infringing sales of the 2705 ball. The matter comes before the…
2Cases cited15 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
- Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2006