Harold S. Hemstreet v. Computer Entry Systems Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that receiving “explicit notice” and “specific warning” of related actions against other infringers, the defendant “apparently made a deliberate business decision to ignore that warning and to proceed as if nothing had occurred”
• noting that negotiations plus six years of silence did not justify a finding of equitable estoppel
• finding that the patentee's silence \must be accompanied by some other factor which indicates that the silence was sufficiently misleading as to amount to bad faith\
• finding summary judgment on laches inappropriate where plaintiff delayed suit against defendant for thirteen years while enforcing its patent against other parties
• noting the accused infringer made a deliberate business decision to proceed by regarding the plaintiffs warning
• finding a genuine issue of fact as to whether patentee engaged in misleading conduct because “[t]he letter did not threaten immediate litigation, nor did it provide any deadline for response”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).