Legal Opinion

Corning Inc. v. Sru Biosystems

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided March 7, 2006No. CIV.A.03-633-JJFPublished

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FARNAN, District Judge.

This action was brought by Corning Incorporated and Artificial Sensing Instruments ASI AG (collectively “Corning”) against SRU Biosystems, LLC, SRU Bios- ystems, Inc. and SRU Biosystems Holdings, LLC (collectively, “SRU”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,815,843 (the “ ’843 patent”). By previously issued Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court concluded that the ’843 patent was valid and that SRU literally infringed and induced infringement of the ’843 patent. The Court then permitted the parties to supplement the record as it pertained to the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

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
Critikon, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Garlock, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
Elk Corporation Of Dallas v. Gaf Building Materials CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.