MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY and Imation Corp., Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLETON PAPERS INC., Defendant.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
February 16, 1999.
February 16, 1999.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Susan C. Laine, Peggy Kubicz Hall, Carolyn A. Bates, Joseph Henry Otterstetter, 3M Company, St. Paul, MN, Frank P. Porcelli, Alan D. Smith, Jeffrey L. Snow, Fish & Richardson, Boston, MA, Susan M. Zerull, Unknown, Ralph A. Mittelberger, Fish & Richardson, Washington, DC, Daniel R. Shulman, Shulman Walcott & Shulman, Mpls, MN, Michael Eugene Florey, Stephen Reynold Schaefer, Fish & Richardson, Mpls., MN, for Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company.
Daniel R Shulman, David Lawrence Shulman, Shulman Walcott & Shulman, Mpls., MN, for Imation Corp.
Keith P. Wilson, St. Paul, MN, pro se.
Kenneth J. Perrington, Cold Springs, MN, pro se.
Charles Andrew Mays, Douglas Bruce Greenswag, Harold D. Field, Jr., Robert Lee DeMay, Steven L. Belton, Keith S. Moheban, Elizabeth A Cumming, Laurie J. Dechery, Leonard Street and Deinard, Mpls, MN, William L. Greene, Greene Espel, Mpls, MN, Steven P. Petersen, William J. Birmingham, Theodore W. Anderson, Allen E. Hoover, Mark Joy, Leydig Voit & Mayer, Chicago, IL, Edwin F. Bush, II, Bush Law Office, Appleton, WI, Ben Mieliulis, for Appleton Papers, Inc.
Sandra Jean Grove, Castor Klukas Scherer & Logren, Mpls., MN, James J Dries, Dries Law Office, Brookfield, WI, April Rockstead Barker, Liebmann Conway Olejniczak & Jerry, Green Bay, WI, for Home Insurance Company.
Jerome R. Klukas, Castor Klukas Scherer & Logren, Mpls., MN, for Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Royal Indemnity Company.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota.
ORDER
DOTY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on (1) defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the federal antitrust issues in this case; (2) parties' cross-motions to strike certain material submitted during the briefing of the partial summary judgment motion; (3) plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the infringement and public use issues; and (4) defendant's motion for summary judgment on the public use issue. Based on a review...
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.
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.
