Legal Opinion

3M Unitek Corp. v. Ormco Co.

District Court, C.D. California

Decided February 24, 2000No. 99-10099-RAP(EX)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

PAEZ, District JUDGE.

I

Introduction

Plaintiffs 3M Unitek Corporation, 3M Innovative Properties Company and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (collectively “3M Unitek”) are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant from continuing to sell its “inspire!” ceramic orthodontic brackets for use in orthodontic braces. Plaintiffs argue that the defendant’s bracket infringes on plaintiffs’ patents, United States Patents 5,366,372 (“372 patent”) and 5,439,379 (“379 patent”). Because the Court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
  2. Hybritech Incorporated v. Abbott LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  3. Continental Can Company Usa, Inc. And Continental Pet Technologies, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, Hoover Universal, Inc. And Johnson Controls, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
  4. Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  5. Egbert v. LippmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1881

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rosen Entm't Sys., LP v. Icon Enters., Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2005
  2. Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API