Duhn Oil Tool Inc v. Cooper Cameron Corporation, No. 1:2005cv01411 - Document 788 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT dated 8/17/2012 signed by District Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 8/17/2012. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Duhn Oil Tool Inc v. Cooper Cameron Corporation Doc. 788 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION 9 10 DUHN OIL TOOL, INC., CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01411-MLH-GSA 11 Plaintiff, 12 FINAL JUDGMENT vs. 13 14 CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This is a patent lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. (“Duhn Oil”) against 18 Cooper Cameron Corporation (“Cameron”). The patent-in-suit is United States Patent No. 19 6,920,925 “Wellhead Isolation Tool” (“the ‘925 patent”). On November 9, 2005, Plaintiff 20 Duhn Oil filed a complaint for patent infringement against Defendant Cameron. (Doc. No. 1.) 21 Following a jury trial and a bench trial on certain issues, and in accordance with the jury's 22 verdict and the Court’s orders, the Court issues judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 58(a). 24 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT: 25 Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, and 29 of the ‘925 patent are invalid for anticipation by the ‘94 26 catalog under 35 U.S.C. § 102. (Doc. No. 764.) 27 Claim 3 is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. (Doc. No. 775.) 28 Therefore, all asserted claims of the ‘925 patent are invalid. (Doc. Nos. 764, 775.) The -1- 1:05cv01411 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Court issues judgment in favor of Defendant Cameron International and against Plaintiff Duhn 2 Oil Tool, Inc. The Court grants costs to Cameron as the prevailing party. Each party will bear 3 its own attorney’s fees as the Court concludes this is not an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 4 § 285. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: August 17, 2012 7 _____________________________________ 8 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1:05cv01411
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
