How cited: Korody-Colyer Corp. v. General Motors Corp. · Go Syfert

Korody-Colyer Corp. v. General Motors Corp. (1985)

green · 14 citation events across 8 courts. Showing the 5 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Likewise, while a finding of inequitable conduct in procuring a patent in the patent office may justify finding that a case is exceptional and that it warrants an award of attorneys’ fees, see Korody-Colyer Corp. v. GM Corp., 760 F.2d 1293, 1294-95 (Fed.Cir.1985), a finding of such inequitable conduct does not automatically compel either a finding that a case is exceptional or an award of fees.
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.
Courts have granted attorneys’ fees in cases involving “inequitable conduct.” E.g., Korody-Colyer Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 760 F.2d 1293, 1295 (Fed.Cir. 1985).
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y
Korody-Colyer Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 760 F.2d 1293, 1295 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Cited · D. Utah · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Bott v. Four Star Corp., 807 F.2d 1567 , 1 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1210 (Fed.Cir.1986) (factors that can support an award of attorney fees in patent cases are willful infringement, unfairness, bad faith, inequitable conduct or fraud, vexatious litigation or some similar circumstance); see Korody-Colyer, 760 F.2d 1293 , 225 U.S.P.Q. 1099 ; Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 713 F.2d 705 , 218 U.S.P.Q. 969 (Fed.Cir.1983).
Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Korody-Colyer Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 760 F.2d 1293, 1294-95 (Fed.Cir.1985); J.P.