Legal Opinion
Bayer Ag and Bayer Corporation v. Carlsbad Technology, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided September 23, 2002No. 02-1077PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RADER, Circuit Judge.
On summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California held that the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 4,670,444 (the '444 patent) is December 9, 2003. Because the district court correctly concluded as a matter of law that the disclaimed term of the '444 patent was “due to” U.S- Patent No. 4,544,658, whose expiration date the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) amendments automatically changed from October 1, 2002 to December 9, 2003, this court affirms.
I
Bayer AG and Bayer Corporation (collectively Bayer) filed a patent application…
2Cases cited9 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
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- The Johns Hopkins University, Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Becton Dickinson and Company v. Cellpro, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Board of Regents of the University of WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Merck & Co. v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- Boeing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- Charter Federal Savings Bank v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
- Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. LeeDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.