Neurovision Medical Products Inc. v. Nuvasive Inc. et al
| Neurovision Medical Products Inc. |
| Nuvasive Inc. and Does |
| 2:2009cv06988 |
| September 25, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Ventura |
| McDermott |
| Real |
| Other |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) |
| 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
489
JUDGMENT by Judge Dale S. Fischer JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff Neurovision Medical Products, Inc. and against defendant NuVasive, Inc. in the amount of $30,000,000. NuVasive and each of its officers, agents, servants and empl oyees, and all those persons in active concert or participation with them are hereby forever enjoined from using the mark NEUROVISION in the sale, offering for sale, distribution, lending, marketing or advertising of medical devices or related mercha ndise and services at any locality in the United States. United States Patent and Trademark registration numbers 2,711,777 and 2,782,540 for the mark NEUROVISION shall be cancelled. The cancellation shall be stayed pending appeal. (See order for further details). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (shb)
|
|
Filing
484
PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed by Judge Dale S. Fischer against Defendant Nuvasive Inc. NuVasive and each of its officers, agents, servants and employees, and allthose persons in active concert or participation with them are hereby foreverenjoined from using the mark NEUROVISION in the sale, offering for sale,distribution, lending, marketing or advertising of medical devices or relatedmerchandise and services at any locality in the United States, provided, however, that the following shall not be c onsidered a violation of this injunction: 1) Use of or reference to the NEUROVISION mark for truthful informational purposes with investors and regulatory agencies, including without limitation, the Securities and Exchange Commission or FDA, torefer to historic products, historic product sales, and/or this lawsuit; and 2) In response to a customer inquiry, NuVasive can truthfully explain that it formerly marketed products under the name NEUROVISION. (shb)
|
|
Filing
228
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES by Judge Manuel L. Real. Fees awarded in favor of Neurovision Medical Products Inc. against Nuvasive Inc. in the amount ofPlaintiff is awarded attorneys fees in the amount of $1,132,899 and additional costs in the amount of $55,151. The clerk previously awarded taxable costs to Plaintiff in the amount of $29,179.70. (Doc. No. 214.) Therefore, the Court hereby orders the clerk to fill in the amount of $1,217,229.70 on the blank line on page 2, line 25 of the Judgment (Doc No. 187). (lc)
|
|
Filing
187
JUDGMENT by Judge Manuel L. Real: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff and counter-defendant Neurovision Medical Products, Inc., and against defendant and counter-claimant NuVasive, Inc. Neurov ision Medical shall have and recover against NuVasive $60,000,000. Neurovision Medical shall have and recover its fees and costs in the amount of $___. The judgment shall bear post-judgment interest at the legal rate until paid. NuVasive and each of its officers, agents, servants and employees, and all those persons in active concert or participation with them are hereby forever enjoined. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)
|
|
Filing
18
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Manuel L. Real (pj)
|
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 California Central 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.
