Legal Opinion
Oxford Gene Technology Ltd. v. Mergen Ltd.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided November 16, 2004No. CIV.A. 02-1695-KAJPublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JORDAN, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a patent infringement case. Presently before me are two motions. First, is a motion filed by plaintiff, Oxford Gene Technology Limited (“OGT”), to exclude from evidence the expert opinions of Paul E. Purdue and Dr. William R. La-tham III (D.I. 196; “OGT’s Motion to Exclude”). Second, is a motion filed by defendant, Mergen Limited (“Mergen”) to exclude the testimony of OGT’s willfulness expert Charlotte H. Coperthite (D.I. 188; “Mergen’s Motion to Exclude”). Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. For the reasons…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1970
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- AstraZeneca LP v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2006
- Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2017
- In re Flonase Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
- Borgwarner, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc.District Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2010
- Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2013
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.