· 9/30/1998
Tristrata Technology, Inc. v. Neoteric Cosmetics, Inc.
Citations
- 35 F. Supp. 2d 370
- 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21260
- 1998 WL 985202
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reasoning that “pending and abandoned applications may contain information or admissions that clarify, define or interpret the claims of the patent in suit”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Farnan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.