Legal Opinion
VIVID TECHNOLOGIES INC. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided July 10, 1997No. Civ.A. 96-11059-REKPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum and Interlocutory Order Construing Claims 5 and 8 of the ’283 Patent
KEETON, District Judge.
In this action, the plaintiff, Vivid Technologies (“Vivid”), seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe patent No. 5,253,283, (“ ’283 patent”), held by American Science & Engineering, Inc., or, in the alternative, that the ’283 patent is invalid. It is AS & E’s position that Vivid makes, uses, or sells a system that reads, element for element, on claims 5 and 8 of the ’283 patent and that Vivid infringes claims 5 and 8 of that patent. AS & E’s assertion of infringement is premised…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal Ig CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- The Standard Oil Company, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. American Cyanamid Company, Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Abbott Laboratories v. Selfcare, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1998
- Schawbel Corp. v. Conair Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2000
- Fantasy Sports Properties, Inc. v. Sportsline.Com, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2000
- Cellcast Technologies, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.