1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 657 F.Supp.
  5. 657 F.Supp. 935 (1987)
 

INPRO, INC. v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO., INC.

No. 85 C 8477.

657 F.Supp. 935 (1987)

INPRO, INC., and David Orlowski, Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

March 30, 1987.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Y. Judd Azulay, Azulay & Azulay, P.C., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

William J. McKenna, Hopkins & Sutter, Chicago, Ill., Charles C. Winchester, John M. Skenyon, Robert C. Nabinger, Fish & Richardson, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

ORDER

BUA, District Judge.

This order concerns defendant's motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Defendant maintains that Claims 1, 2, and 4 of plaintiffs' U.S. Patent No. 4,022,479 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) and 35 U.S.C. § 112 (failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which constitutes the invention). For the reasons stated herein, defendant's motion is granted.

I...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases