Legal Opinion
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 2, 2000No. Civ. A.97-6050 (WHW), 98-159(WHW), 98-1412(WHW), 98-1488(WHW) and 98-2827(WHW)PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALLS, District Judge.
Defendants and counterclaimants Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, IVAS Corporation, Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals, Im-munex Corporation (collectively the “IVAX defendants”) and Ben Venue Laboratories (“Ben Venue”) move for summary judgment of invalidity of United States Patents Nos. 5,670,537 (“ ’537 patent”) and 5,641,-803 (“ ’803 patent”) on the grounds of anticipation, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and obviousness, 35 U.S.C. § 103. Plaintiff Bristol-Myers Squibb (“Bristol”) opposes the motions. The motions are granted in part.
Ben Venue’s first motion for summary judgment…
2Cases cited38 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
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Hybritech Incorporated v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Ben Venue LabsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Xechem, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2003
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue LaboratoriesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Katun Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2005
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.