Legal Opinion
Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 30, 1996No. 95 Civ. 3474 (CBM), 94 Civ. 8634, 95 Civ. 0110 and 96 Civ. 1755PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MOTLEY, District Judge.
This court decided on August 3, 1995 that the law firm Morgan & Finnegan would be disqualified from representing Novo Nordisk A/S, et al. (“Novo”) in all subsequent proceedings in the above-captioned ease. Gen-entech, Inc. (“Genentech”) had moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Novo from infringing Genentech’s patent for human growth hormone product (the “ ’980 patent”). From May 22, 1995 to June 14, 1995, a hearing was held on this motion and on June 28, 1995, this court granted it. See Novo Nordisk v. Genentech, Inc., 1995 WL 512171 (S.D.N.Y.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Novo Nordisk of North America, Inc., Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Novo Nordisk, A/s v. Genentech, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Rice v. BaronDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
- Ocean-Clear, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/SDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1995
- Tisby v. Buffalo General HospitalDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1994
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fulfree v. ManchesterDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- United States v. Tate & Lyle North American Sugars, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002