Read More on:
Send to KindleCorona treating equipment suit settled
Pillar countersued alleging that Enercon's patent was not valid; this suit was stayed pending the outcome of the infringement suit. By the time the infringement case went to trial in July 1993 Ahlbrandt/Enercon had removed one patent from the suit as well as six of the seven claims of the second patent identified as Patent #4. On June 14 the U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin ruled on the suit ordering that it be dismissed. Having found in favor of Pillar the judge found it unnecessary to decide on Pillar's claims of invalidity of the patent. Pillar says it has "won a resounding decision." Enercon says "the judge rendered a split decision" because while he did indeed find that Pillar hadn't infringed "he did not rule that Enercon's patent or any of its claims was invalid as Pillar had argued." Pillar has motioned the court to rule on the validity issue.
Comments(0)
Add new comment