Legal Opinion
Carnegie Mellon University v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided June 27, 2001No. C95-3524 SIPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ILLSTON, District Judge.
On March 16, 2001, the Court heard argument on the Roche 1 defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim for declaratory judgment that claims 1-19, 22-40 and 43-45 of the ’708 patent are invalid. Having carefully considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, the Court GRANTS the motion for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Carnegie Mellon University (“Carnegie Mellon”) and Three Rivers Bio-logicals, Inc. filed suit against several defendants alleging…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- T.W. Electrical Service, Inc. v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Anthony A. Calderone, Clark Hornbaker, Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants v. United States of America, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986
- American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Carnegie Mellon University v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. v. Station Casinos, Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 2004
- CV0426-18, Peter v. GillSuperior Court of Guam · 2020
- Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. v. Station Casinos, Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 2004