Legal Opinion
Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Interlace Medical, Inc.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided June 27, 2013No. Civil Action No. 10-10951-RWZPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
ZOBEL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Smith & Nephew, Inc. (“S & N”), sued defendants Interlace Medical, Inc., and Hologic, Inc. (collectively “Hologic”),1 for infringing two patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,226,459 (“the '459 patent”), relating to an arthroscopic surgical instrument, and U.S. Patent No. 8,061,359 (“the '359 patent”), relating to a surgical endoscopic cutting device and method for its use. After a ten-day trial, the jury found all the asserted patent claims valid and infringed. The case then proceeded to a two-day bench trial on whether S & N procured the '359…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. And E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Hollister IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 2017
- Veracode, Inc. v. Appthority, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2015
- Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2017
- Exergen Corp. v. Brooklands Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2018
- Dumanian v. SchwartzDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.