Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 663-72. |
| Citation | 558 F. Supp. 747 |
| Parties | STRUTHERS PATENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. The NESTLE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, v. STRUTHERS WELLS CORPORATION, et al., Additional Defendants on Counterclaim. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Waldron Kraemer, Kasen & Kraemer, P.C., Newark, N.J., Michael Lesch, Richard M. Goldstein, Adam Gilbert, Shea & Gould, William Drucker, New York City, for Struthers; Jay M. Cantor, Washington, D.C., of counsel.
Ralph N. Del Deo, Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan & Purcell, Newark, N.J., William H. Vogt, III, Paul E. O'Donnell, Jr., Charles M. Caruso, Marcus J. Millet, Vogt & O'Donnell, White Plains, N.Y., for Nestle.
Introduction
Plaintiff, Struthers Patent Corporation, filed its complaint on April 13, 1972, alleging that defendant, The Nestle Company, Inc., was infringing ten Struthers patents by its manufacture and sale of soluble coffee. Nestle denied infringement and asserts that each of the patents is invalid and unenforceable. Nestle filed a counterclaim seeking, in one Count, a declaratory judgment of invalidity and unenforceability of each of the ten patents and asserting, in a second Count, a claim alleging unfair competition. Nestle joined as defendants on the counterclaim two corporations which are affiliated with plaintiff ?€” Struthers Wells Corporation and Struthers Scientific and International Corporation. The three affiliated corporations will be referred to collectively as "Struthers".
The case has had a protracted pretrial history. Two matters are now ripe for disposition: (i) Struthers' motion to confirm the report and recommendation of a special master concerning sanctions to be imposed by reason of Struthers' destruction of relevant documents prior to institution of this action, and (ii) Nestle's motions for summary judgment of invalidity and/or unenforceability of the ten patents in suit.
For the reasons which are set forth in Parts I through V of this opinion, the findings of the special master will be adopted in part, modified in part, and rejected in part, but his recommendation that no sanctions be imposed will be adopted; Nestle's motions for summary judgment of invalidity of the ten patents will be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Independent Petrochem. Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur.
...past 15 years. Hartford believes that Charter's obligation to preserve potentially relevant documents, see Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc., 558 F.Supp. 747 (D.N.J. 1981), arose when the dioxin claims against plaintiffs were filed over a decade ago. As Hartford sees it, continuous......
-
Mueller v. Bull's Eye Sport Shop, LLC
...should be imposed. See id. at 532, 502 N.W.2d 881 (citing and adopting the analytical framework set forth in Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co. , 558 F. Supp. 747 (D.N.J. 1981) ). First, the court identifies, with as much specificity as possible, the evidence that is alleged to have been ......
-
Welsh v. U.S.
...F.R.D. 543, 556-58 (N.D.Cal.1987) (VA destruction of radiation records warrants Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 sanctions); Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co., 558 F.Supp. 747, 763-66 (D.N.J.1981) (dicta). In the medical malpractice context, at least two state appellate courts have endorsed the creation ......
-
Refac Intern. Ltd. v. IBM
...be used or made from the patent specification itself. In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 54 CCPA 1551 (1967); Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Corp., Inc., 558 F.Supp. 747, 785 (D.N.J.1981). On the other hand, when the subject matter is not deemed complex and is easily understandable without expe......