Legal Opinion
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Immunex Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 2, 2000No. CIV. A. 97-6050 (WHW), 98-159(WHW), 98-1412(WHW)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALLS, District Judge.
Defendant-counterclaimants Immunex Corporation, Zenith Goldline, and IVAX Corporation (collectively “IVAX defendants”) move for a Markman claim interpretation ruling and for partial summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,641,803 (“the ’803 patent”), owned by plaintiff Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (“Bristol”) and asserted in these infringement actions. Patentee Bristol opposes the motion. This Opinion sets out the construction of the two patents in suit. The IVAX defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment of noninfringement of the ’803 patent is…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- 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
- Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Autogiro Company of America v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
- Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v. Zebco Corporation and Brunswick CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 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
- TDM America, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Katun Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2005
- SDS USA, INC. v. Ken Specialties, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.