ROHM AND HAAS CO. v. MOBIL OIL CORP.

Civ. A. Nos. 78-384-JLL, 79-397-JLL.

654 F.Supp. 82 (1987)

ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie, Defendants. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie, Plaintiffs, v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY, Defendant.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

February 2, 1987.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Rudolf E. Hutz, James M. Mulligan, Jr., Januar D. Bove, Jr., Jeffrey B. Bove, Mary W. Bourke of Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz, Wilmington, Del., and William E. Lambert III and Terrence P. Strobaugh of Rohm and Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel, for Rohm and Haas Co.

Charles S. Crompton, Jr. of Potter, Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, Del., and John A. Diaz, J. Robert Dailey and Arnold I. Rady of Morgan & Finnegan, New York City, for Mobil Oil Corp., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., and Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

LATCHUM, Senior District Judge.

This dispute began when Rohm and Haas Company ("Rohm & Haas") filed Civil Action No. 78-384 which seeks a declaratory judgment that a patent held by Mobil Oil Corporation ("Mobil"),1 United States Patent No. 3,979,437 ("437 patent"), is invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. (Docket Item ["D.I."] 1.)2 Mobil counterclaimed for infringement...

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