Legal Opinion
Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided July 17, 1980No. Civil 3-75-248PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INCORPORATING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
MacLAUGHLIN, District Judge.
This patent infringement action was initiated by plaintiff in 1975 against defendants Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Cardinal American Corporation. In 1978, after defendants requested a separate trial on the validity of the Bergstrom patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), this Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that the patent was not invalid under that particular statute. Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 457 F.Supp. 213 (D.Minn.1978), aff’d, 599 F.2d 62 (8th Cir. 1979). Prior to trial,…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Gorham Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Braun Inc. And Braun Aktiengesellschaft, Plaintiffs/cross-Appellants v. Dynamics Corporation of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Catalina Lighting, Inc., and Home Depot Usa, Inc., Third Party v. Lamps Plus, Inc. And Pacific Coast Lighting, Defendants/third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- In re RosenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.