Legal Opinion
In Re Columbia University Patent Litigation
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided August 18, 2004No. MDL 1592PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WOLF, District Judge.
For the reasons described more fully in court on August 16, 2004, the court is allowing the plaintiffs’ Motion for Limited Discovery Relevant to the Issue of Non-Statutory Double Patenting (the “Motion”). With the agreement of the plaintiffs, which are drug companies, the court is entering a protective order concerning the information produced as a result of the Motion being allowed.
The Motion seeks discovery of the prosecution history of a pending patent application, Application No. 08/477,159 (the “ Y59 application”). The defendant in these case, the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Anne Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., Globe Newspaper Company, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1986
- Microsoft Corporation v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. v. Net2phone, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Laitram Corporation and Intralox, Inc. v. Morehouse Industries, Inc. (Now Summa Corporation), Kvp Acquisition Corp. And Kvp Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Struthers Scientific & International Corp. v. General Foods Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1968
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- DOE v. SMITHDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2025