Conditioned Ocular Enhancement, Inc. v. Bonaventura
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ZAGEL, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Defendant Michael Bonaventura’s assignment of United States Patent No. 6,447,408 (the “'408 Patent”) to Plaintiff Conditioned Ocular Enhancement, Inc. (“COE”). Upon learning that Defendant Thomas Davidson (“Davidson”) was providing vision training services that COE believed to be the patented Ocular Enhancement Training System, COE brought an action for infringement of the '408 Patent against Davidson. 1 In particular, COE alleges that Davidson was providing patented vision training services to Defendant…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination UnitSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,228 Rocco Dileo and Louise Dileo v. Ernst & YoungCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
- Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd.Illinois Supreme Court · 1996
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Patrick v. City of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2015
- Sussman-Automatic Corp. v. Spa World Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2014
- ATC Healthcare Services, Inc. v. RCM Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2016
- Axcan Scandipharm Inc. v. Ethex Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2007
- Saunders v. City of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2015
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.