ALCON MANUFACTURING, LTD et al v. APOTEX INC. et al
| 1:2006cv01642 |
| November 15, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Richard L. Young |
| Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 Patent Infringement |
| None |
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
333
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (see Entry). Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 5/23/2011.(PG)
|
|
Filing
275
ORDER granting 250 Motion to Sever Claims by and Against Sandoz, Inc. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 2/22/2010. (PG)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER on 9/26/08, Discovery Hearing: This patent lawsuit raises several discovery issues, one of which involves an electronically produced document containing privileged information, which requires the Court to consider waiver issues under the new Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and the governing protective order. The Court held a hearing on these matters, at which the parties presented evidence and argument (See Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 11/26/08.(SWM)
|
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 Indiana 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
| Search for this case: ALCON MANUFACTURING, LTD et al v. APOTEX INC. et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
