Legal Opinion
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 1, 2000No. CIV. A. 97-6050 (WHW)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALLS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Bristol-Myers Squibb (“Bristol”) brings this motion for summary judgment to dismiss defendants’ best mode defense under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Ben Venue opposes the motion. Bristol’s motion is denied.
Background 1
This motion centers on the relevance of purified Cremaphor (also called “Sandoz Cremaphor”) to the two patents in suit, United States Patents 5,670,537. (“’537 patent”) and 5,641,803 (“ ’803 patent”). The issue is whether Bristol was required by statute to disclose that it used purified Cremaphor to produce the taxol infusion 2 to be parenterally…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Amgen, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Genetics Institute, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Chemcast Corporation v. Arco Industries CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Transco Products Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. And Performance Contracting Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Engel Industries, Inc. v. The Lockformer Company, Iowa Precision Industries, Inc. And Met-Coil Systems CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Zygo Corporation v. Wyko CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue LaboratoriesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- SDS USA, INC. v. Ken Specialties, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2000