1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. LIFESCAN, INC. v. SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
 

LIFESCAN, INC. v. SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Case No. 12-cv-06360-JST.

LIFESCAN, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

June 24, 2013.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lifescan, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Susan Dana Roeder , O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Catherine A Williams , Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Gregory L. Diskant , Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler LLP, Michael James Timmons , Johnson and Johnson, Richard Blair Goetz , O'Melveny & Myers LLP & William Francis Cavanaugh , Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP.

Johnson & Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Dana Roeder , O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Catherine A Williams , Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Gregory L. Diskant , Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler LLP, Michael James Timmons , Johnson and Johnson, Richard Blair Goetz , O'Melveny & Myers LLP & William Francis Cavanaugh , Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP.

Shasta Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert P. Andris , Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley.

Decision Diagnostics Corp., Defendant, represented by John Joseph Shaeffer , Lathrop & Gage LLP, Carole Enid Handler , Lathrop Gage LLP, Jeffrey Harrison Grant , Lathrop & Gage LLP & William A Rudy , Lathrop and Gage.

Pharmatech Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Joseph Shaeffer , Lathrop & Gage LLP, Carole Enid Handler , Lathrop Gage LLP, Jeffrey Harrison Grant , Lathrop & Gage LLP & William A Rudy , Lathrop and Gage.

Conductive Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert P. Andris , Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley.

ORDER MODIFYING INJUNCTION; DENYING MOTION TO STAY; SETTING BOND; GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: ECF Nos. 99, 100, 104, 106

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

In this action for violations of the Lanham Act and related claims, Defendants move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) for a stay of the preliminary injunction that the Court issued on May 21, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to stay the injunction is DENIED. Additionally...

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