Legal Opinion
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 17, 2000No. CIV. A. 97-6050 (WHW), 98-159(WHW), 98-1412(WHW), 98-1488(WHW) and 98-2827(WHW)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
WALLS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“Bristol”) moves for summary judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,641,803 (“the ’803 patent”) and 5,670,537 (“the ’537 patent”) are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Defendants and counterclaim-ants, Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IVAX Corporation, Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Immunex Corporation (collectively “IVAX”) oppose this motion. Defendants Mylan, Schein and Marsam join and adopt IVAX’s arguments. So too defendants Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc. and Bedford Laboratories…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. And E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Hollister IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Giordano v. MARKET AMERICA, INC.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
- Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. ThompsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2001
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue LaboratoriesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2000