Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
District Court, D. New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOLFSON, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the Motion of Defendants, Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited and Ranbaxy Inc., (collectively referred to as “Ranbaxy”), for Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Improper In-ventorship on Plaintiff Roche Palo Alto LLC (“Roehe”)’s United States Patent, No. 6,083,953 (the “953 Patent”). Ranbaxy argues that the '953 Patent is invalid because the patent originally issued with improper inventorship and was not corrected until a Certificate of Correction was obtained after the commencement of this litigation. The parties disagree whether the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Crandon v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Curley v. KlemCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.