Videomedia

Convergence Corp. v. Videomedia

Good Law
539 F. Supp. 760·218 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 397·1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12978
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 6, 1982C-80-0786 WHO, C-80-0787 WHOCalifornia4,324 words

Opinion

Opinion

Orrick, J.

Defendants in these related patent infringement actions have moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff on the basis of a judgment invalidating plaintiff’s patent in the Central District of California. One defendant additionally has moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 Ú.S.C. § 285. Plaintiff has moved to stay these proceedings pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit of its appeal from the earlier action. The Court declines to stay these proceedings, grants summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and denies defendant Videomedia’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees.

I

Plaintiff, Convergence Corporation, a manufacturer of a video tape editing machine, sued defendants Videomedia, Inc. and Cezar International, Ltd., manufacturers of similar machines, in separate actions for infringement of plaintiff’s patent on its video tape editor. Both defendants have filed counterclaims based on plaintiff’s alleged violations of the Sherman Act. This Court determined that these cases were related on March 24, 1980.

On January 7,1981, Judge Pfaelzer of the Central District of California entered judgment against plaintiff in a similar action, Convergence…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.