11/16/2023 0 Comments Karl fink fitch evan![]() ![]() We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. The order was transmitted to GM, and GM sent back an acknowledgment on June 14, 1991. Najarian was informed that the price would be up to $2000 higher than the 1991 model and he placed a deposit on the car at that time. Although a firm price was not established at that time, Mr. Najarian agreed to buy a Corvette with an LT1 engine. Najarian entered into a contract with a GM dealer on Jin which GM agreed to sell and Mr. As a specific example, GM introduced evidence regarding a retail customer named Aram Najarian who visited a Corvette dealer in West Bloomfield, Michigan, in June, 1991. ![]() The orders, over 300 of which were placed on behalf of specific retail customers, were placed through a computer network and GM transmitted an acknowledgment back to the dealer after receiving the order. GM produced computer records documenting over 2000 orders placed by dealers around the country for the 1992 Corvette before the critical date. A sales representative at a GM dealership also testified that it was the dealership's common practice to order new cars and enter into agreements to sell new cars shortly after receiving the Guide. A representative of GM testified that it expected the dealers would start ordering the vehicles as soon as the Order Guide was sent to them. At about the same time, GM sent its dealers a supplemental brochure that provided additional ordering information for the 1992 Corvette, specifically stating that the car had reverse flow engine cooling. Specifically, GM sent an "Order Guide" for the 1992 Corvette to its independent dealers in late April or early May, 1991 to be used for ordering the vehicle described in the Order Guide. ![]() GM asserted that the '636 patent was invalid because GM and its independent dealers had placed the patented invention on sale prior to the critical date with the introduction of its 1992 Corvette. GM counterclaimed for a declaration of invalidity and non-infringement. In early 1994, Evans filed the present lawsuit alleging that GM infringed the '636 patent by the manufacture and sale of cars having GM's "LT1" and "L99" engines. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |