Legal Opinion
Armour Pharmaceutical Co. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided March 1, 1967No. Civ. A. 2421PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CALEB M. WRIGHT, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff, Armour Pharmaceutical Company (Armour), brings this declaratory judgment seeking to have defendant, Richardson-Merrell’s (RM) patent Number 3,004,893 (’93) invalidated. RM has counterclaimed for infringement. Currently before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment. Armour moves for a summary judgment of invalidity, and RM seeks a “partial summary judgment” of infringement. The uncontested facts are as follows:
The ’93 patent teaches the use of en-teric coated proteolytic enzymes, notably trypsin and chymotrypsin, as orally administered…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Shell Development Co. v. WatsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1957
3Cited by6 opinions
- Johnson & Johnson v. W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1977
- Mobil Oil Corporation v. WR Grace & CompanyDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1973
- Armour Pharmaceutical Company, a Delaware Corporation v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., a Delaware Ware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Grinnell Corp. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1968
- Grinnell Corporation v. Virginia Electric & Power CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1968
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.