Legal Opinion
Petito v. Puritan's Pride, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 31, 2014No. Nos. 13 Civ. 8040(PAE), 13 Civ. 8074(PAE), 13 Civ. 8077(PAE), 13 Civ. 8128(PAE)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION & ORDER
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge.
In these four related cases, George Peti-to, Anita Petito, and Connective Licensing, LLC allege that Puritan’s Pride, Inc., Rexall Sundown, Inc., Nature’s Bounty, Inc., and Physiologies, LLC, respectively, have each infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,645,948 (“the '948 patent”), entitled “Nutritional Composition for the Treatment of Connective Tissue.” Defendants now move for summary judgment on two grounds. *497First, they argue that the '948 patent is invalid because it fails the utility and written description requirements of 85 U.S.C. § 112. Second,…
2Cases cited26 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
- Hicks v. BainesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
- Wright v. GoordCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- Holcomb v. Iona CollegeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kaneka Corporation v. Cocrystal Technology (Jiaxing) Co., Ltd. and Cocrystal Health Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.District Court, E.D. New York · 2026
- Serby v. First Alert, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2015
- Serby v. First Alert, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2015
- Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Oystar USA, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 2019