1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.2d
  4. 60 F.Supp.2d
  5. 60 F.Supp.2d 316 (1999)
 

W.R. GRACE & CO.—CONN. v. INTERCAT, INC.

No. Civ.A. 93-522-LON.

60 F.Supp.2d 316 (1999)

W.R. GRACE & CO.—CONN., Plaintiff, v. INTERCAT, INC. and Conoco, Inc., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

August 9, 1999.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert H. Richards III, Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, Delaware, of Counsel: John J. Mackiewicz, Gary H. Levin, and David R. Bailey, Woodcock, Washburn, Kurtz, Mackiewicz & Norris, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for plaintiff.

Arthur G. Connolly, Jr., Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz, Wilmington, Delaware, of counsel Nels T. Lippert, William P. DiSalvatore, and Chase Romick, White & Case, New York City, for defendants.

OPINION

LONGOBARDI, Senior District Judge.

I. Introduction

This is the damages phase of a patent infringement action. The Court conducted a bench trial over eight days beginning September 10, 1996 to determine liability. On September 8, 1997, the Court found that plaintiff's patents were valid and enforceable, were willfully infringed by defendant Intercat, both contributorily and by inducement, and were directly infringed by defendant Conoco...

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