Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker Hannifin Corp.

425 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D. Mass. 2006)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker Hannifin Corp.

2 Citing cases

  1. Omegaflex v. Parker-Hannifin

    243 F. App'x 592 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

    MICHEL, Chief Judge. Defendant-Appellant Parker-Hannifin Corporation ("Parker") appeals from grant of summary judgment of infringement and patent validity, and issuance of a permanent injunction by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 425 F.Supp.2d 171 (D.Mass. 2006). Because Parker's evidence established genuine issues of material fact, we reverse the grant of summary judgment of validity, vacate the injunction, and remand for trial.

  2. Diomed, Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc.

    450 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Mass. 2006)   Cited 7 times
    Finding insufficient prejudice where defendants were alerted to expert's theory from initial report and deposition

    Id. (citation omitted). See also Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 425 F. Supp. 2d 171, 180-81 nn. 16-19 (D. Mass. 2006) (elaborating on the factors listed above). Where prior art manifests all elements of a challenged invention, the court must also consider: