Legal Opinion
Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corp.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided August 31, 2007No. Civil Action 98-12308-DPW, 99-11528-DPW, 01-12307-DPWPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, District Judge.
Plaintiff Cohesive Technologies produces equipment for high-performance liquid chromatography (“HPLC”), a process scientists use to separate a mixture of chemical compounds into its various components. Cohesive has patented an apparatus and method for increasing the efficiency of HPLC separations by increasing the rate of flow of solvent (the liquid in which the mixture of compounds is dissolved) through the HPLC column, which is filled with solid particles. These cases stem from allegations by Cohesive Technologies that the Oasis HPLC…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. And E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Hollister IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 2008
- Presidio Components Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 2010
- Veracode, Inc. v. Appthority, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2015
- PrintGuard, Inc. v. Anti-Marking Systems, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2008
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.