Legal Opinion
Pieczenik v. Dyax Corp.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided September 18, 2002No. CIV.A. 00-11370-RGSPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEARNS, District Judge.
This decision follows a hearing held under the directives of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). “Markman requires a trial judge in a patent case to construe and define the contested claims of a patent. The task com mitted to the judge is to explain what the protected invention is, and sometimes what it is not, ideally in language that will be accessible to a lay jury.” Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 18 F.Supp.2d 105, 106 (D.Mass.1998).
As described by the inventor, Dr. George Pieczenik:
[t]he…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pieczenik v. Dyax Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003