Legal Opinion
Urologix, Inc. v. PROSTALUND AB
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Decided April 7, 2003No. 02-C-0318PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
ADELMAN, District Judge.
On October 10, 2002, I granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and held that plaintiff Urologix’s U.S. Patent No. 5,234,004 (the “ ’004 patent”) is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). Urologix, Inc. v. Prostalund AB, 227 F.Supp.2d 1033 (E.D.Wis.2002). Urologix has now filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) requesting that I vacate my prior order. 1
I. BACKGROUND
To explain my ruling on Urologix’s motion to vacate, I must recount some of the history of the prosecution of the ’004 patent. This history appears in more detail in my October 10,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Agostini v. FeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Caisse Nationale De Credit Agricole, a French Banking Corporation v. Cbi Industries, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nalco Co. v. Turner Designs, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014