Legal Opinion
Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Digene Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided February 19, 2004No. CIV.A. 02-212 JJFPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FARNAN, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the Motion Of Digene Corporation (“Digene”) For Partial Summary Judgment Of Invalidity (By Reason Of Indefíniteness). (D.I.36.) For the reasons discussed, the Court will deny the Motion.
CONTENTIONS
Digene contends that claims 16-29 and 44-56 of U.S. Patent No. 6,221,581 (the “ ’581 patent”) are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph two. Specifically, Digene contends that an inherent contradiction in the claims makes them indefinite. Digene contends that claims 16’s and 44’s requirement that the first…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Allen Engineering Corporation v. Bartell Industries, Inc. And Darragh CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dow Chemical Co. v. NOVA CHEMICALS CORP.(CANADA)District Court, D. Delaware · 2009
- Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2010
- Guardant Health, Inc. v. Foundation Medicine, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2019