Advanced Cardiovascu v. Medtronic, Inc.
| Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. |
| Medtronic, Inc. |
| Scott J. Solano |
| Martin R. Glick |
| 4:1995cv03577 |
| October 10, 1995 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Oakland Office |
| Santa Clara |
| Wayne D. Brazil |
| D. Lowell Jensen |
| Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 |
| Both |
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
705
ORDER re 654 Defendant's MOTION to Modify Injunction After October 29, 2008. Accordingly, the permanent injunction is amended by deleting the words"or other legal expiration of the patent", and the injunction will stay in effect only until October 29, 2008. Signed by Judge D. Lowell Jensen on 10/21/08. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2008)
|
|
Filing
703
STIPULATION AND ORDER Regarding Statement of Recent Decision Extending Term of Patent Underlying Permanent Injunction. Signed by Judge D. Lowell Jensen on 10/15/08. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2008)
|
|
Filing
668
ORDER regarding Substitution of counsel, Attorney Robert Francis McCauley for Plaintiff Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. added. Attorney Hope L. Hudson; Timothy J. Malloy; Alejandro Menchaca; Eligio C. Pimentel; Richard Henry Abramson and Stephen H. Bean terminated.. Signed by Judge D. Lowell Jensen on 9/10/08. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2008)
|
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 Northern 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.
