Legal Opinion
Cytologic, Inc. v. Biopheresis Gmbh
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided January 15, 2010No. Civil Action 08-978(CKK)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, Cytologic, Inc. and Colorado State University Research Foundation (collectively, “Cytologic”), filed the above-captioned action challenging the actions and decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146. Cytologic named as Defendants Biopheresis GMBH, and Biopheresis Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Biopheresis”). Presently before the Court is Cytologic’s [20] Motion for Summary Judgment to Vacate Interference Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §…
2Cases cited30 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Ross J. Laningham v. United States NavyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987
- In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Dome Patent, L.P. v. ReaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd. v. Abbott Gmbh & Co. KgDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Bollfrass v. Phoenix, City ofDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2020
- Brown v. Acutus Medical, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2022
- City of Hollywood Firefighters' Pension System v. Wells Fargo & CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.