Legal Opinion
Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp.
District Court, C.D. California
Decided January 14, 2005No. CV 03-1267 CJC(MLGX)PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
CARNEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Applied Medical Resources Corp. (“Applied”) seeks partial summary judgment that Defendant United States Surgical Corp. (“U.S.Surgical”) is collaterally estopped from relitigating the validity of Claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 5,385,553 (“the ’553 Patent”). The Court concludes Applied is entitled to such a judgment. 1 The issue of the validity of Claim 18 of the ’553 Patent was vigorously litigated and ultimately determined in the parties’ previous lawsuit in the Eastern District…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Yamaha Corporation of America v. United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1992
- Raymond Keith Foster, Keith Mfg. Co., and Keith Sales, Co. v. Hallco Manufacturing Co., Inc., and Olof A. HallstromCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2007
- Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2017
- Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLCDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2019
- Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2014
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.