1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 666 F.Supp.
  5. 666 F.Supp. 1072 (1987)
 

LEE v. DAYTON-HUDSON CORP.

Civ. No. 3-84-751.

666 F.Supp. 1072 (1987)

Robert W. LEE, d/b/a Rollo-Laxer, Plaintiff, v. DAYTON-HUDSON CORPORATION, d/b/a Target Stores, et al., Defendants.

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

March 19, 1987.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert E. Pitts, R. Bradford Brittian, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Douglas L. Dutton, Knoxville, Tenn., for Dayton-Hudson.

Geoffrey D. Kressin, Knoxville, Tenn., for Matrix.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JARVIS, District Judge.

This is an action for patent infringement and arises under the patent laws of the United States (Title 35, U.S.C.). Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and is not in dispute. The plaintiff, Robert W. Lee (hereinafter "Lee"), is the owner of United States letters patent design number 259,142 (sometimes hereafter referred to as "D'142") for the invention of the ornamental design for a massage implement...

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