1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 401 F.3d
  5. 401 F.3d 1313 (2005)
 

MEDRAD, INC. v. MRI DEVICES CORP.

No. 04-1134.

401 F.3d 1313 (2005)

MEDRAD, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MRI DEVICES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 16, 2005.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

W. Thomas McGough, Jr., Reed Smith LLP, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Frederick H. Colen; Kirsten R. Rydstrom; and Robert D. Kucler. Of counsel on the brief was Gregory L. Bradley, Medrad, Inc., of Indianola, Pennsylvania.

James F. Hurst, Winston & Strawn LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Derek J. Sarafa and Brian R. Pollack.

Before RADER, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

Medrad, Inc., brought this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, CA No. 02-2044, alleging that MRI Devices Corp. ("MRIDC") was infringing Medrad's patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,396,273 ("the '273 patent"). The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After a hearing, the magistrate judge recommended that MRIDC's motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases