Legal Opinion

Go Medical Industries Pty, Ltd. v. Inmed Corp.

District Court, N.D. Georgia

Decided July 9, 2003No. 1:01-cv-00313PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

THRASH, District Judge.

This is an action for patent and trademark infringement. It is before the Court on motions for summary judgment filed by all parties. In summary, the Court holds that the Defendants have infringed the Plaintiffs’ patent, but the patent is invalid due to prior art because it is not entitled to a priority date of 1979. The conflicting claims to ownership of the O’Neil trademark for urinary catheters present questions of fact to be decided at trial. The Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judg ment as to Defendants’ non-trademark state law counterclaims.

I. BACKGROUND

Pla…

2Cases cited57 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Hybritech Incorporated v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986

52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Leathers v. Pfizer, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2006
  2. In re Delta/Airtran Baggage Fee Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2012
  3. Frierson v. Atlanta Independent School SystemDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2014
  4. Direct Components, Inc. v. Microchip USA, LLC, et al.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2025
  5. Favors v. City of AtlantaDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2020

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API