Legal Opinion
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided June 26, 2009No. 1:04-cr-00346PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT M. DOW, Jr., District Judge.
Before the Court are several pending motions for summary judgment. Defendant Cadbury Adams USA LLC (“Cad-bury”) moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to establish the invalidity of Claim 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,627,233 (the “'233 patent”), owned by Plaintiff, Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. (‘Wrigley”), on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. 1 Wrigley moved for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,009,893 (the “'893 patent”), owned by Cadbury [209].…
2Cases cited75 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re Ace Track Co.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2016
- Bernadette Freeman v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security AdministrationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2026
- Cain v. PatelDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2021