Legal Opinion

Imax Corp. v. In-Three, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California

Decided July 29, 2005No. CV05-1795FMC(MCX)PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING COMPLETION OF THE REEXAMINATION OF THE U.S. PATENT NO. 4,925,294

COOPER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant In-Three, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Completion of Reexamination of U.S. Patent. No. 4,925,294 (docket no. 54), filed June 10, 2005. The Court, having read and considered the moving, opposition and reply documents submitted in connection with this motion, hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons and in the manner set forth below.

I. Background

This patent infringement action concerns a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  2. Ethicon, Inc. v. Donald J. Quigg, Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks and the United States Patent & Trademark OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
  2. Ada Solutions, Inc. v. Engineered Plastics, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011
  3. At & T INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY I v. TiVo, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2011
  4. Tomco2 Equipment Co. v. Southeastern Agri-Systems, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2008
  5. Akzenta Paneele + Profile GmbH v. Unilin Flooring N.C. LLCDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2006

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API