Legal Opinion
Diomed, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided August 30, 2006No. CIV.A. 04-10019-NMG, 04-10444-NMGPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, District Judge.
Pending before the Court in these consolidated patent cases are a motion to exclude expert testimony and several cross-motions for summary judgment.
I. Background
The plaintiff, Diomed, Inc. (“Diomed”), develops laser technology that is designed to treat varicose veins in a minimally invasive manner. It sells a product under the mark EVLT® which apparently relates to U.S. Patent No. 6,398,777 (“the ’777 patent”), owned by Diomed.
In January, 2004, Diomed filed a complaint alleging that AngioDynamics, Inc. (“AngioDynamics”) infringed the ’777 patent. The…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Molins Plc, and John Coventry Smith, Jr. v. Textron, Inc., Kearney & Trecker Corporation, and Avco CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- 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
- Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2017
- Doe v. PikeDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2019
- Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2007
- Zipwall, LLC v. Fastcap, LLCDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2007