Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc.

Good Law
962 F. Supp. 1249·97 Daily Journal DAR 12907·1997 WL 194949·42 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1629·1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5447
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaApril 15, 1997CV 96-8513 WJR (RCx)California2,213 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rea, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

The motion to dismiss of defendants Harmonic Design, Inc. (“Harmonic”), Springs Industries, Inc. (“Springs”), and Springs Window Fashions Division, Inc. (“SWFD”) was filed on February 3, 1997, and oral argument was held on April 7, 1997. Having considered the above motion, the papers filed in support thereof and in opposition thereto, and the files in the case, the Court hereby finds and rules as follows:

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth herein.

I. Procedural History and Background

Plaintiffs Hunter Douglas, Inc. (“Hunter Douglas”) and Hunter Douglas Fabrication Company (“HD Fabrication”) commenced active marketing of their DUETTE Powerrise model electronic window shade in December, 1996. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants Harmonic Design, Springs and SWFD. In them complaint against defendants, plaintiffs assert that they were damaged by Harmonic Designs’ negligent and fraudulent procurement of allegedly invalid patents for an electronic window shade design since it restrained the plaintiffs from entering the market for the shades for…

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.