Legal Opinion
Inverness Medical Switzerland GmbH v. Acon Laboratories, Inc.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided April 29, 2005No. CIV.A. 03-11323 PBSPublished
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SARIS, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Aeon Laboratories, Inc. (“Aeon”) defends a patent infringement suit 1 by plaintiffs Inverness Medical Switzerland GmbH, Unipath Diagnostics, Inc., and Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (“Inverness”) by claiming, inter alia, that claims 7 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,485,982 (“the ’982 patent”) are invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. Aeon argues that because the ’982 patent specification, which is also the specification in the original patent application, only describes a test…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Amgen Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (Now Known as Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Barbour v. Dynamics Research Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.