Skinmedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc. et al
| Skinmedica, Inc. |
| Histogen Inc., Histogen Aesthetics LLC and Gail K. Naughton |
| 3:2009cv00122 |
| January 22, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Patent Office |
| San Diego |
| Nita L. Stormes |
| Thomas J. Whelan |
| Both |
| Federal Question |
| 35:145 Patent Infringement |
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
312
Redacted ORDER: SkinMedica's 196 motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. Histogen's 211 motion for summary judgment is DENIED. SkinMedica's 237 motion for final judgment is DENIED. Histogen's 287 motion for attorneys' fees is DENIED. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/4/12.(lmt)
|
|
Filing
228
ORDER granting 153 Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Noninfringement: the Court GRANTS Histogen's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of both the '494 and the '746 patents. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 11/21/11. (lmt)
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER: Construing Disputed Claim Terms of United States Patent Nos. 6,372,494 and 7,118,746. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 5/24/11.(lmt)
|
|
Filing
140
ORDER Overruling Defendants' 48 -3 Objections to Extrinsic Evidence Cited by Skinmedica in Support of its Opening Claim Construction Brief. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 11/23/10.(lmt)
|
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 Southern 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.
