1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 722 F.Supp.
  5. 722 F.Supp. 592 (1988)
 

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO. v. BAUSCH & LOMB, INC.

No. C-84-20642 RPA.

722 F.Supp. 592 (1988)

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

April 5, 1988.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

S. Leslie Misrock, Jonathan A. Marshall, Pennie & Edmonds, New York City, James P. Kleinberg, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Jose, Cal., Hewlett-Packard Co., Colorado Springs, Colo., for plaintiff.

Laurence H. Pretty, Gary A. Clark, Pretty, Schroeder, Brueggemann & Clark, Los Angeles, Cal., John M. Ottoboni, Anne L. Enea, Ferrari, Alvarez, Olsen & Ottoboni, San Jose, Cal., Holly E. Kendig, Mark A. Samuels, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., Bernard D. Bogdon, Bausch & Lomb Inc., Rochester, N.Y., Godfrey Isaac, Isaac, Glusman & Dolin, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant.

ORDER RE SEVERAL MOTIONS AND SETTING TRIAL SCHEDULE

AGUILAR, District Judge.

On March 18, 1988, the Court entertained plaintiff Hewlett-Packard's ("HP") motion for summary judgment against defendant Bausch & Lomb, Inc. ("B & L") on the validity of the defendant's patent, Re. No. 31,684 (the "Yeiser reissue patent"). After reviewing the papers and hearing the argument of counsel, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted. The affidavits...

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