Legal Opinion
Heinl v. Godici
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided May 30, 2001No. Civil Action 01-458-APublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ELLIS, District Judge.
This is an action by a patentee to prevent a second, and in his view, illegal reexamination of his patent. More specifically, plaintiff, Thomas Heinl, owner of Patent No. 4,903,691 (“the ’691 Patent”), sues to enjoin defendant 1 from proceeding on a second reexamination of the ’691 patent in Reexamination Control No. 90/005,-809 (“the ’809 Reexamination”) on the ground that the second reexamination does not present a substantial new question of patentability, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 303.
I
The ’691 patent claims a set of surgical instruments for…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Weinberger v. SalfiSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Leedom v. KyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbHDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2002
- Presidio Components Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 2010
- Versata Development Corp. v. ReaDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2013
- Wollman v. GerenDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2009
- Synopsys, Inc. v. MatalDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2017
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.