Legal Opinion
Semiconductor Energy Laboratory, Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided October 23, 1998No. CIV. A. 96-1460-APublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ELLIS, District Judge.
In this patent infringement action, plaintiff Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. (“SEL”) alleged that defendants Samsung Electronics, Samsung Electronics America, and Samsung Semiconductor, (collectively “Samsung”) made or sold active matrix display units that infringed SEL’s U.S. Patent No. 5,543,636 (“the ’636 patent”). Among its defenses to SEL’s charge of infringement, Samsung alleged that the ’636 patent was unenforceable owing to SEL’s inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Between March 17, 1998 and April 3, 1998, a…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Hutchinson v. StatonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
- Molins Plc, and John Coventry Smith, Jr. v. Textron, Inc., Kearney & Trecker Corporation, and Avco CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Hughes Aircraft Company v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- In Re John Rodgers BurnleyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
- Biodex Corporation v. Loredan Biomedical, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- Morrow Corp. v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2000
- Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2006
- eSpeed, Inc. v. Brokertec USA, L.L.C.District Court, D. Delaware · 2006
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.