The suit was for patent infringement. The claim was that plaintiffs had a valid patent for an invention for awnings and that defendants had been, and were, infringing thereon.
The defenses were that the plaintiffs' patent was invalid for lack of invention, and that defendants are not infringing.
There was a counter-claim in which defendants alleged that plaintiffs were engaged in a...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
