Amtab Mfg. Corp. v. Sico Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Edwards Vacuum LLC v. Supply

    Case No. 3:20-cv-1681-AC (D. Or. Dec. 15, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Rather, "a party seeking a prosecution bar 'must present a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.'" Id. (quoting AmTab Mfg. Corp. v. SICO Inc., 2012 WL 195027, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2012)). To justify enforcing a prosecution bar, "the moving party must identify 'specific information that would cause it injury if disclosed.'"

  2. Fontem Ventures B.V. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.

    1:16-CV-1255 (Lead Case) (M.D.N.C. May. 23, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    "[T]he moving party must identify 'specific information that would cause it injury if disclosed.'" Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. Suns Legacy Partners, LLC, No. CV-11-02304, 2012 WL 6049746, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 5, 2012) (quoting AmTab Mfg. Corp. v. SICO, Inc., No. 11 C 2692, 2012 WL 195027, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2012)). "[B]road allegations of speculative harm are not sufficient to establish good cause."