Legal Opinion

Jewish Hospital of St. Louis v. Idexx Laboratories

District Court, D. Maine

Decided December 2, 1996No. Civil No. 95-290-P-HPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HORNBY, Chief Judge.

Washington University, Jewish Hospital’s predecessor in title to the ‘275 patent, has consistently claimed and been awarded the benefit of “small entity status,” resulting in a fifty per cent reduction in the fees paid to the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).1 In fact, however, Mallinckrodt, Inc. was the licensee under the patent and thereby disqualified the patent owner from obtaining small entity status. As a result, IDEXX argues, the patent owner never paid the proper fees for obtaining and maintaining the ‘275 patent, and the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ralph D. Ray v. Bruce Lehman, Commissioner of Patents and TrademarksCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
  2. Haden Schweitzer Corp. v. Arthur B. Myr Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1995

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dh Technology, Inc. (Now Axiohm Transaction Solutions, Inc.) v. Synergystex International, Inc., Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
  2. Ulead Systems, Inc. v. Lex Computer & Management Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2001
  3. SIG Arms v. Employers Ins. of WausauDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API