Legal Opinion

Conditioned Ocular Enhancement, Inc. v. Bonaventura

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided October 17, 2006No. 05 C 2153PublishedCited by 44 opinions

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

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination UnitSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,228 Rocco Dileo and Louise Dileo v. Ernst & YoungCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
  5. Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd.Illinois Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Patrick v. City of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2015
  2. Sussman-Automatic Corp. v. Spa World Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2014
  3. ATC Healthcare Services, Inc. v. RCM Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2016
  4. Axcan Scandipharm Inc. v. Ethex Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2007
  5. Saunders v. City of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2015

39 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