Legal Opinion
Uroplasty, Inc. v. Advanced Uroscience, Inc., Brennen Medical, Inc., and Timothy Lawin
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided February 8, 2001No. 00-1185PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAYER, Chief Judge.
Uroplasty, Inc. (Uroplasty) appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granting summary judgment that Advanced Uroscience, Inc., Brennen Medical, Inc., and Timothy Lawin (collectively, UroScience) did not misappropriate Uroplasty’s trade secrets and did not breach contracts with or fiduciary duties to Uroplasty. See Uroplasty, Inc. v. Advanced UroScience, Inc., No. 98-2082 (D.Minn. Nov. 5, 1999). Because the action does not arise under the federal patent law and removal from state court was improper, we vacate and remand with…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Consolidated World Housewares, Inc. v. Gerald A. Finkle, Jack D. Bankier, Kenneth J. Muderlak, and Bankier Companies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
3Cited by18 opinions
- HIF Bio, Inc. v. Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals Industrial Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Russo v. Ballard Medical ProductsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- Obstfeld Ex Rel. Toev Medical Corp. v. SchwartzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Caldera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regents of the UniversityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- ClearPlay, Inc. v. AbecassisCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.