Legal Opinion

CONCEPTUS, INC. v. Hologic, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided December 16, 2010No. C 09-02280 WHAPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND LIMIT TRIAL TESTIMONY

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

In this patent infringement action involving intrafallopian contraceptive devices, the parties each move for summary judgment. Plaintiff Conceptas, Inc. requests summary adjudication of the following:

1. That defendant Hologic, Inc. has contributed to the direct infringement of method claims 37 and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 6,634,861 through the sale of its Adiana Permanent Contraception System since July 6, 2009;

2. That Conceptus’s Essure procedure practices…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
  5. Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2016
  2. TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Sony Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2013
  3. Discover Bank v. LemleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  4. Discover Bank v. Maurie Lemley, et uxCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  5. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2020

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API