Legal Opinion

Tristrata Technology, Inc. v. Neoteric Cosmetics, Inc.

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided September 30, 1998No. CIV.A.96-227-JJFPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FARNAN, Chief Judge.

Presently before the Court is a discovery dispute in this patent infringement action filed by Tristrata Technology Inc. (“Tristra-ta”) against Neoteric Cosmetics, Inc., Murad Skin Research Laboratories, Inc., Howard Murad, M.D, Chanel, Inc., Clarins USA, Inc., Cosmair, Inc., Beiersdorf, Inc., and Leiner Health Products, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) (D.I.143). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants’ discovery request.

BACKGROUND

In their First Request for the Production of Documents and Things, Defendants requested Tristrata to “produce…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Scovill Manufacturing Co. v. Sunbeam Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1973
  2. Central Sprinkler Co. v. Grinnell Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. Cordis Corp. v. SciMed Life Systems, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1997
  4. Bott v. Four Star Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1987

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Caliper Technologies Corp. v. Molecular Devices Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2003
  2. ICU Medical, Inc. v. B.Braun Medical, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2002
  3. NimbeLink Corp. v. Digi International Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API