Legal Opinion

Nikon Corp. v. ASM Lithography B.V.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided August 6, 2004No. Nos. C 01-5031 MHP, C 02-5081 MHP, C 02-5601 MHPPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order and Memorandum Motion to Intervene

PATEL, Chief Judge.

On December 21, 2001, plaintiffs Nikon Corporation and Nikon Precision, Inc. (collectively “Nikon” or “plaintiffs”) brought a patent infringement action against defendants ASM Lithography B.Y. and ASM Lithography, Inc. (collectively “ASML” or “defendants”).1 Among other things, plaintiffs’ complaint alleges infringement of four patents: United States Patent Number 6,233,-041 (“the ’041 patent”), United States Patent Number 6,377,336 (“the ’336 patent”), United States Patent Number 6,392,740 (“the ’740 patent”), and United States…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Trbovich v. United Mine WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Smith v. MarshCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  3. Securities & Exchange Commission v. United States Realty & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  4. Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  5. Bp Chemicals Limited v. Union Carbide CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2023
  2. Kings River Packing LP v. WKS AG Consultants Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API