Legal Opinion
Genentech, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California
District Court, S.D. Indiana
Decided September 26, 1996No. MDL Docket 912PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Entry Granting UC’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Genentech’s Third Party Beneficiary Claim
DILLIN, District Judge.
This cause comes before the Court on UC’s motion for summary judgment on Genentech’s third party beneficiary claim and on Genentech’s cross motion for discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). Because we GRANT UC’s summary judgment motion, we. need not consider Genentech’s cross motion for discovery.
Background
The present action is one of six eases consolidated in this Court for pretrial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation., See In re Recombinant DNA…
2Cases cited15 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
- Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, and the Regents of the University of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Regents of the University of California v. Genentech, IncSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Audrey Price v. Samuel PierceCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Audio Odyssey, Ltd. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 2003
- Genentech, Inc. v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Orthodontic Affiliates, P.C. v. Orthalliance, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2002
- Genentech, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, and Eli Lilly and Company, and United States, Intervenor. Genentech, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, and Eli Lilly and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998