Dunhall Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Discus Dental, Inc.
District Court, C.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
Background
KELLER, District Judge.
In the underlying case, plaintiff has filed consolidated actions against defendants alleging, among other things, that they have willfully infringed plaintiffs United States Reissue Patent No. Re. 34,196 (the 196 patent). In response, defendants have asserted in part that they had a good faith belief that their product was not infringing and/or that the 196 patent was invalid or unenforceable, based in part on advice provided to them by the Christie, Parker & Hale law firm. Plaintiff thereafter sought broad discovery regarding the advice of counsel. To much of…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- The Read Corporation and F.T. Read & Sons, Inc. v. Portec, Inc., D/B/A Portec/kolberg DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Underwater Devices Incorporated v. Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. v. Lester A. Haug, Don W. Schmid and Herman GuntherCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Central Soya Company, Inc. v. Geo. A. Hormel & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Amsted Industries Incorporated, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Buckeye Steel Castings CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- XYZ Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2003
- Beneficial Franchise Co. v. Bank One, N.A.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2001
- Katz v. AT & T Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2000
- Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2001
- Simmons, Inc. v. Bombardier, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2004
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.