Wafer Shave, Inc. v. Gillette Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding patent holder’s inaction was misleading because reasons for delay were not communicated to, or known by, the alleged infringer
• affirming a finding of equitable estoppel where (1) patentee sent a cease and desist letter; (2) patentee failed to respond to the accused infringer’s letter requesting reasons for the patentee’s assertions of infringement and was silent for one year; (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).