1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.2d
  4. 46 F.Supp.2d
  5. 46 F.Supp.2d 713 (1999)
 

WOOSTER BRUSH CO. v. NEWELL OPERATING CO.

No. 5:98-CV-2356.

46 F.Supp.2d 713 (1999)

The WOOSTER BRUSH COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. NEWELL OPERATING COMPANY,, d/b/a and through its division, EZ Paintr Company, Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

April 6, 1999.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Harry D. Cornett, Jr., Jeffrey Alden Healy, Thomas E. O'Connor, Jr., Arter & Hadden, Columbus, OH, Mark J. Skakun, III, Ralph D. Amiet, Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, Akron, OH, for Wooster Brush Company, plaintiff.

Michael L. Brody, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, Laura J. Gentilcore, Ray L. Weber, Edward G. Greive, Renner, Kenner, Greive, Bobak, Taylor & Weber, Akron, OH, Christopher B. Schneider, Micah R. Onixt, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Chicago, IL, for Newell Operating Company defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

GWIN, District Judge.

On March 1, 1999, Plaintiff Wooster Brush Co. moved this Court for summary judgment [Doc. 27]. In seeking summary judgment in this patent infringement action, Plaintiff Wooster Brush argues that no material facts support Defendant-Counterplaintiff Newell Operating Company's claim that Wooster Brush infringes United States Patent Number 5,195,242 (the '242 patent).

Because the Court finds no material facts supporting...

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