Legal Opinion
In Re '639 Patent Litigation
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided August 14, 2001No. CIV.A.97-12416-RCLPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
LINDSAY, District Judge.
I. Introduction
This case concerns United States Patent No. 4,420,639 (the “ ’639 patent”), issued with respect to the chemical compound known as nabumetone to Anthony W. Lake and Carl J. Rose on December 13, 1983 and assigned to Beecham Group, p.l.c. (“Beecham”), one of two plaintiffs herein. 1 Stipulated Facts ¶¶ 6, 82. The ’639 patent contains four claims covering nabumetone. Only two of those claims are at issue in this case: claim 2, which recites the compound in solid form; and claim 4, which recites the…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. And E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Hollister IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Molins Plc, and John Coventry Smith, Jr. v. Textron, Inc., Kearney & Trecker Corporation, and Avco CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004
- In re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2003
- In re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2005
- In Re BaldassaroUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · 2006
- In Re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.