Legal Opinion
Micro Motion, Inc. v. Exac Corp.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided November 3, 1987No. C-84-20681-SWPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PATENT ENFORCEABILITY
SPENCER WILLIAMS, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
1. This is an action for patent infringement in which the issues were trifurcated for separate trials of enforceability to the Court, and thereafter infringement and damages to a jury.
2. The enforceability issues to be tried related to Exac’s charges that Micro Motion’s conduct in obtaining the ’450 Patent [Reissue Patent No. 31,450] and the ’025 Patent [4,491,025] was inequitable because (a) during prosecution of the patent applications which led to the ’450 Patent, the applicant…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Litton Industrial Products, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Solid State Systems Corp., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. Lex Tex Ltd., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson and Personal Products CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Mannesmann Demag Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Engineered Metal Products Co., Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Micro Motion, Incorporated v. Kane Steel Co., Inc., Cross/appellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Micro Motion Incorporated v. Exac Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor v. Smith Meter, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
- Micro Motion, Inc. v. Exac Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1990
- Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. SciMed Life SystemsDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1999