3-D Matrix, Inc. et al v. Menicon Co. Ltd. et al
| 3-D Matrix, Inc., 3-D Matrix, Ltd. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| Menicon Co. Ltd. and B-Bridge International, Inc. |
| 1:2014cv10205 |
| January 27, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Middlesex |
| Richard G. Stearns |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
59
Judge Indira Talwani: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the claim terms in this matter are construed as follows:1. The term homogeneous means of the same character structure, qual ity, etc.; essentially like; of the same nature.2. The term amphiphilic peptides, means peptides that contain hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions along their lengths.3. The term complementary means the ability of peptides to interact th rough ionized pairs or hydrogen bonds.4. The term structurally compatible means the ability of complementary peptides to maintain a constant distance between their peptide backbones.5. The term membrane means a thin sheet or layer that moderates permeation.6. The term alternating hydrophobic and hydrophilic amino acids means completely alternating hydrophobic and hydrophilic amino acids, i.e. no adjacent amino acids are both hydrophobic or both hydrophilic.(MacDonald, Gail)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
