Cases

PROST, Chief Judge. This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1923, 195 L.Ed.2d 278 (2016). In the original appeal, Zimmer, Inc., Zimmer Surgical, Inc., and Zimmer Orthopaedic Surgical Products (collectively “Zimmer”) appealed from the final judgment of the Uni

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING PER CURIAM. ORDER A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by appellees Stryker Corporation, Stryker Sales Corporation and Stryker Puerto Rico, Ltd. and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by appellant Zimmer Surgical, Inc. and Zimmer, Inc. This was followed by Stryker Corporati

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted. Joint motion of respondent for divided argument denied.

*357The case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC PER CURIAM. Appellees Stryker Corporation, Stryker Puerto Rico, Ltd., and Stryker Sales Corporation filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by appellants Zimmer, Inc. and Zimmer Surgical, Inc. Leave to file a reply was granted, and a reply was filed by the appellees. The petition was i

ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: *478Currently pending before the Court are the parties' motions for summary judgment (D.I. 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 316, 356, 411) and Daubert motions to exclude expert testimony and opinions. (D.I. 317, 321, 322, 327). The parties have fully briefed the issues (D.I. 314, 318, 320, 323, 324, 328, 351, 353,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT TRAGUS SURGICAL, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY AND MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING Dale A. Drozd, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the court on three motions: defendant Tragus Surgical, Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint (Doc. No. 29); plaintiff Stryker Sales Cor*612

PLAGER, Circuit Judge. This is a patent case. Plaintiffs-Appellants Howmedica Osteonics Corp. and Stryker Ireland Ltd. (collectively, “Stryker”) appeal the district court’s final judgment. 1 The district court held that Defendants-Appellees Smith & Nephew, Inc. (“Smith”); Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (‘Wright”);

741 F.Supp. 509 (1990) STRYKER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ZIMMER, INC. and Zimmer-Smoyer Associates, Inc., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 84-2399. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. June 15, 1990. *510 Andora, Palmisano, Geaney & Romano by John F. Geaney, Jr., Elmwood Park, N.J., Morgan & Finnegan by John A. Diaz, Chri

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ STRYKER CORPORATION, STRYKER PUERTO RICO, LTD., STRYKER SALES CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ZIMMER, INC., ZIMMER SURGICAL, INC., Defendants-Appellants ZIMMER ORTHOPAEDIC SURGICAL PRODUCTS, Defendant ______________________ 2013-1668 ____________________

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ STRYKER CORPORATION, STRYKER PUERTO RICO, LTD., STRYKER SALES CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ZIMMER, INC., ZIMMER SURGICAL, INC., Defendants-Appellants ZIMMER ORTHOPAEDIC SURGICAL PRODUCTS, Defendant ______________________ 2013-1668 ____________________

Office of the Director New Mexico 09:35:46 2020.07.10 Compilation '00'06- Commission IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2020-NMCA-020 Filing Date: December 30, 2019 No. A-1-CA-36565 MICHAEL BRIAN MCDONALD, PH.D, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ZIMMER INC., and ZIMMER HOLDINGS INC.,

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

766 F.Supp.2d 1012 (2011) Sara MONROE, Plaintiff, v. ZIMMER U.S. INC., Zimmer, Inc., and Does 1 through 25, Defendants. No. CIV. S-08-2944 FCD/EFB. United States District Court, E.D. California. February 14, 2011. *1015 Stewart C. Altemus, Altemus & Wagner, Redding, CA, Paul J. Schachter, PHV, Penny Hendy, PHV, Ronald E. John

258 F.Supp.2d 874 (2003) ZIMMER, INC., Plaintiff, v. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., Defendant. No. 3:02 CV 0425AS. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division. April 3, 2003. *875 David P. Irmscher and Abigail M. Butler of Baker & Daniels, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff. Robert J. Palmer, May Oberfell an

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0050p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ INSTITUTO MEXICANO DEL SEGURO SOCIAL, │ Plaintiff-Ap

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PAUL A. MAGNUSON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Stephen Trippel Re “Safety Testing” and State of the Scientific Literature for Notice, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Limit or Exclude. Defendants’ Experts as Cumulative. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ Motio

801 F.Supp.2d 1098 (2011) Eric J. SCHOENBORN, and Suzanne G. Schoenborn, Plaintiffs, v. STRYKER CORPORATION, and Stryker Sales Corporation, Defendants. Civ. No. 08-1419-AA. United States District Court, D. Oregon. July 11, 2011. *1099 Ernest Franklin Woodson, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery, AL

453 F.Supp.2d 1030 (2006) ZIMMER TECHNOLOGY, INC. and Zimmer, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., Defendant. No. 3:02-CV-425. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division. September 28, 2006. *1031 *1032 *1033 Bryan S. Hales P