Legal Opinion
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided May 18, 2007No. 04 C 346PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ZAGEL, District Judge.
On January 20, 2004, Plaintiff WM. Wrigley Jr. Co. (“Wrigley”) filed suit against Cadbury Adams USA, LLC (“Cad-bury”) alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,627,233 (“'233 Patent”). The subject of the patent is a method for producing a chewing gum containing certain physiological cooling agents. In return, Cadbury countersued alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,009,893 (“'893 Patent”). The '893 Patent also claims a chewing gum or confection-ary product containing physiological cooling agents. The parties have asked…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lecat's Ventriloscope v. MT Tool & Mfg.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 2018
- Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2009
- Lecat's Ventriloscope v. MT Tool and ManufacturingDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2018