Legal Opinion
Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak
District Court, C.D. California
Decided May 28, 2002No. CV 99-02160 MMMPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS
MORROW, District Judge.
On February 26, 1999, plaintiffs Inamed Corporation, Inamed Development Company, and Bioenterics Corporation filed a complaint against Lubomyr I. Kuzmak, seeking a declaration that certain patents held by Kuzmak were invalid and unenforceable, and that plaintiffs had not infringed the patents. Plaintiffs also alleged that Kuzmak had engaged in patent misuse, and that he had breached certain licensing agreements. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations…
2Cases cited60 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
- Thornhill Publishing Company, Inc. v. General Telephone & Electronics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Loctite Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Ultraseal Ltd., Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories and Np Medical, Inc., Defendants/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- May v. AndersonNevada Supreme Court · 2005
- Chromadex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2017
- Clippard v. Russell (In Re Russell)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2008
- Rachford v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, InternationalDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2005
- Barajas v. Carriage Cemetery Services of California, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2019
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.