Legal Opinion
Refac International, Inc. v. IBM Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided April 12, 1989No. Civ. A. 85-2020PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
POLITAN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on defendants IBM, Diebold, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Unysis, NCR and Olivetti’s motion for attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Section 285 of the Patent Laws provides that: “The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” The instant motion has been bifurcated into two parts. First, the Court will rule upon the entitlement to fees. If that motion is granted, the parties will submit attorneys fees applications for the Court to determine reasonableness. 1 For the reasons outlined…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mathis v. SpearsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Reactive Metals and Alloys Corporation v. Esm, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Duphar International Research B.V.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Robert F. Hughes v. Novi American, Inc., Oakwood Manufacturing, Inc. v. Novi American, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Charles D. Ashcroft and Milton A. Engle v. Paper Mate Mfg. CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AGDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2001
- Katz v. AIWA America, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1993
- Refac International, Ltd. v. Hitachi, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Refac International, Ltd. v. Hitachi, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990