3M Unitek Corp. v. Ormco Co.
District Court, C.D. California
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
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Hybritech Incorporated v. Abbott LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- 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
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Egbert v. LippmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rosen Entm't Sys., LP v. Icon Enters., Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2005
- Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2013