SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. and John O. Hayhurst, M.D., Plaintiffs,
v.
ARTHREX, INC., Defendant.
United States District Court, D. Oregon.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
May 17, 2007.
May 17, 2007.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Benjamin D. Enerson, John M. Skenyon, Mark J. Hebert, Fish & Richardson, PC, Thomas M. Johnston, Holland & Knight, LLP, Boston, MA, Brenna Kristine Legaard, Chernoff Vilhauer McClung & Stenzel, LLP, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs.
Anthony Philip Cho, Carlson Gaskey & Olds, PC, Birmingham, MI, Peter E. Heuser, Elizabeth A. Tedesco, Kolisch Hartwell, PC, Portland, OR, Rodger D. Young, Steven Susser, Young & Susser, PC, Southfield, MI, for Defendant.
Susan D. Pitchford, Chernoff Vilhauer McClung & Stenzel, LLP, Portland, OR.
United States District Court, D. Oregon.
OPINION & ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOSMAN, District Judge.
In this case, Smith & Nephew1 alleges Arthrex has four devices that infringe its 5,601,557 ("557") patent. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment raising a variety of issues, including infringement and the validity of '557. A hearing was held addressing these motions on February 26, 2007. At that time, I denied Smith & Nephew's motion on infringement...
Let's get started
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.
