Cases

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 04 2020, 8:51 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court

526 F.Supp.2d 162 (2007) DEPUY SPINE, INC., f/k/a Depuy Acromed, Inc. and Biedermann Motech GMBH, Plaintiffs v. MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK, INC., f/k/a Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. 01-10165-EFH. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. December 11, 2007. *163 A

*552ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT MICHELSON’S MOTION TO COMPEL ELECTRONIC MAIL MESSAGES AND DATA AND REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER VESCOVO, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the court is the January 31, 2003 motion of defendant Gary K. Michelson to compel the plaintiff, Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., to produce

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Defendants MEDTRONIC, INC. and MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC. bring motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and to strike all

GORSUCH, Circuit Judge. Some medical devices are so risky they can’t be sold without the federal government’s prior approval. While even relatively simple things like bandages face some degree of federal oversight, manufacturers of pacemakers, heart valves, and the like must prove the “safety and effectiveness” of their devices to the FDA’s satisfaction before offering them for sale. Batteries of tests must be performed and

603 F.3d 943 (2010) MEDTRONIC NAVIGATION, INC. (formerly known as Surgical Navigation Technologies, Inc.), Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., and Sofamor Danek Holdings, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and St. Louis University and Trustees of Dartmouth College, Plaintiffs, and McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Nonparty-Appellant, v. BRAINLAB MEDIZINISCHE COMPUTERSYSTEME GMBH, BrainLAB AG, BrainLAB USA, Inc., and BrainLAB, Inc., Defendants-Appellee

Chen, Circuit Judge. *1275 This appeal concerns UCB, Inc., UCB Manufacturing Ireland Limited, UCB Pharma GmbH, and LTS Lohman Therapie-Systeme AG (UCB)'s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,884,434 1 and 8,232,414.

Case: 19-2255 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 08/03/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC., THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. 10X GENOMICS INC., Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2019-2255, 2019-2285 _____

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 284 of the Patent Act provides that, in a case of infringement, courts "may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed." 35 U.S.C. § 284 . In In re Seagate

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC. AND PULSE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross Appellants. ______________________ 2013-1472, -1656 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District

*1337LINN, Circuit Judge, dissenting, with whom Circuit Judges DYK, PROST, and O’MALLEY join. I. Introduction In its opinion today, this court assumes the mantle of policy maker. It has decided that the plain text of § 271(a) and (b) fails to accord patentees certain extended rights that a majority of this court’s judges would prefe

(2008) EMTEL, INC., Plaintiff, v. LIPIDLABS, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. H-07-1798. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. September 30, 2008. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LEE H. ROSENTHAL, District Judge. This infringement suit involves a patent for a method to provide "telemedicine" using videoconferencing to all

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ HIGHMARK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLCARE HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ 2011-1219 __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texa

715 F.Supp.2d 552 (2010) DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PADDOCK LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. No. 09 Civ. 1905(LBS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 1, 2010. *555 Jay Philip Lefkowitz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, Nathan S. Mammen, Daniel F. Attridge, Jessica Christine Kaiser, Leslie M.

WATERMAN, Justice. In this case involving claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, we have before us an interlocutory appeal on a discovery issue. In particular, the plaintiffs ask us to review a district court order requiring the redesignation of the plaintiffs’ standard operating procedures (SOPs) from “attorneys’ eyes only” to “confidential.” The underlying protective order allowed each party to designate highly sensit

MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case arises under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 1 and involves Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA’s (collectively, “Glenmark”) 2 proposed generic version of Finacea® Gel, a topical medication for various sk

WATT, J.; { 1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Tenth Circuit) certified a single question of first impression to this Court under the Revised Uniform Certifica- *465§ tion of Questions of Law Act, 20 0.S8.2011 1601, et seq. We are not asked whether the negligence claim is preempted by federal law as the Tenth Cireuit has resolved that preempti

689 F.Supp.2d 929 (2010) ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., Plaintiff v. HOLOGIC, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:07cv834. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. January 27, 2010. *931 David Edward Schmit, Frost Brown & Todd, Cincinnati, OH, David A. Steffes, James Asa High, Jr., Paul Justin Zegger, Peter C.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JOHN R. TUNHEIM, Chief Judge, United States District Court Plaintiff Jodi A. Schwendimann brought this patent infringement action against Defendant Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., (“AACI”), and AACI counterclaimed for patent infringement against Schwendimann and one of her businesses, Cooler Concepts, Inc., (“Cooler Concepts”). Both parties’ pate

ORDER ROBERT S. BALLOU, United States Magistrate Judge. The Court entered a protective order in this patent infringement case on December 17, 2013. Dkt. No. 58. The protective order was proposed by defendants Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC (“Kimberly-Clark”), and was identical to that used by the parties in McAirlaids, Inc. v