From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

FRAZIER v. ROESSEL CINE PHOTO TECH, INC.

United States District Court, C.D. California
Sep 21, 2003
Case No.: CV-99-10425 GAF (RZx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2003)

Opinion

Case No.: CV-99-10425 GAF (RZx)

September 21, 2003

William J. Robinson, Victor de Gyarfas, FOLEY LARDNER, Los Angeles, CA Peter J. Toren, Steven E. Klein, SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN WOOD LLP, New York, For Defendent


[PROPSED] FINAL JUDGEMENT


A bench trial on the complete defense of inequitable conduct was held on November 28 29, 2001, December 1, 2001, and August 4, 2002. Thereafter, the parties submitted post-hearing briefs and presented oral argument on December 20, 2002.

In an Opinion and Order dated April 9, 2003, the Court determined that defendants had met their burden of proving that the patent applicant, James Frazier, made materially false and misleading statements to the patent examiner and that such statements were made with an intent to deceive. Accordingly, the Court found U.S. Patent No. 5,727,236 invalid and unenforceable.

In accordance with the Opinion and Order dated April 9, 2003, the Court hereby enters final judgment in favor of defendants Roessel Cine Photo Tech, Inc., Roessel CPT Rentals, Inc., and P+S Technik GmbH Feinmechanik. In addition, the Court hereby declares U.S. Patent No. 5,727,236 to be invalid and unenforceable.

Defendants are the prevailing parties in this action and are entitled their costs of suit.


Summaries of

FRAZIER v. ROESSEL CINE PHOTO TECH, INC.

United States District Court, C.D. California
Sep 21, 2003
Case No.: CV-99-10425 GAF (RZx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2003)
Case details for

FRAZIER v. ROESSEL CINE PHOTO TECH, INC.

Case Details

Full title:JAMES A. FRAZIER, an Individual MANTIS WILDLIFE FILMS PTY LIMITED, an…

Court:United States District Court, C.D. California

Date published: Sep 21, 2003

Citations

Case No.: CV-99-10425 GAF (RZx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2003)