Legal Opinion
Oce-Office Systems, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided July 16, 1993No. 92 C 2221PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ALESIA, District Judge.
This declaratory judgment action concerns alleged patent infringement and the procedural jockeying caused by the initial filing of a declaratory judgment action and, subsequently, an infringement action in another district. Plaintiffs Océ-Office Systems, Inc. and Océ-Nederland B.V. (collectively “Océ”) filed this action on April 1, 1992 seeking a declaration that Eastman Kodak Co.’s (“Kodak”) Letter Patent No. 4,140,387 (“the ’387 patent”) was invalid or not infringed by Océ’s 2500 Copier-Duplicator (“the Océ 2500”). Soon thereafter, on May 28,1992 Kodak filed a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- SAMUELS Et Al. v. MACKELL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF QUEENS COUNTY, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Bankers Trust Company, Cross-Appellee v. Old Republic Insurance Company, Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Tempco Electric Heater Corporation v. Omega Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Amari v. Radio Spirits, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2002
- Biosite, Inc. v. Xoma Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 2001