Legal Opinion
Osteotech, Inc. v. Gensci Regeneration Sciences, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided May 4, 1998No. CIV. A. 98-237PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BISSELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, against a similar action in the Central District of California, and defendants’ motion to dismiss, transfer or stay the case at bar. Plaintiff Osteotech, Inc. (“Osteotech”) alleges here that by making, using and selling two products called DynaGraft Gel and Dyna-Graft Putty, defendants GenSci Regeneration Sciences, Inc. (“GenSci Canada”) and GenSci Laboratories, Inc. (“GenSci Labs”) are infringing its U.S. Patent, No. 5,290,558 (“ ‘558 Patent”). The Court has subject matter…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, LLCDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1999
- TriStrata Technology, Inc. v. Emulgen Laboratories, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2008
- Catanese v. UnileverDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2011
- Cellularvision Technology & Telecommunications, L.P. v. Alltel Corp.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2007
- Wartsila NSD North America, Inc. v. Hill International, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2003
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.