Legal Opinion
Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Florida
Decided November 2, 1996No. 91-8175-CivPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING BIOMET’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT FOR DR. TRON-ZO ON THE PATENT CLAIM AND THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
HURLEY, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court, upon Biomet’s [202-1] motion for judgment as a matter of law on the same grounds raised in Biomet’s [77-1] pending motion for summary judgment. The summary judgment motion was not previously addressed by the court because the court exercised its discretion to submit the case to the jury. Accordingly, at the conclusion of all of the evidence, Biomet renewed…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Mikele S. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Jose Garcia-Pendrosa, Defendants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
- Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Phillips 66 Company, and Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Defendants-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Central Soya Company, Inc. v. Geo. A. Hormel & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Brooktree Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dr. Raymond G. TRONZO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BIOMET, INC., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Dr. Raymond G. Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003