Legal Opinion
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided June 20, 2000No. CIV. 96-4047(HAA)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ACKERMAN, Senior District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Schering’s defense of inequitable conduct in the above-referenced case. This Court severed the defense of inequitable conduct from Boehringer’s claim of infringement and Schering’s defense of obviousness. On January 20, 2000 a jury found the Boeh-ringer had proven infringement by a preponderance of the evidence and that Schering had failed to demonstrate that the 5,476,778 Patent (hereinafter “the ’778 Patent”) was obvious. Thereafter, this Court held a two-day hearing on the issue at hand, i.e., whether Boehringer…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- University of Texas v. CamenischSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. And E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Hollister IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Molins Plc, and John Coventry Smith, Jr. v. Textron, Inc., Kearney & Trecker Corporation, and Avco CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Colorado v. New MexicoSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. Klm Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Schering-Plough Corporation and Schering CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2001