Spineology, Inc. v Wright Medical Technology, Inc.
||Wright Medical Technology, Inc.
||January 28, 2015
||US District Court for the District of Minnesota
||Michael J. Davis
||Franklin L. Noel
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|November 17, 2017
ORDER: Wright Medical Technology's motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 [Docket No. 169 ] is DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on November 17, 2017. (CBC)
|July 25, 2017
ORDER: (1) Spineology's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 91 ] is DENIED. (2) Wright Medical Technology's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Spineology, Inc.'s Expert, Mr. John Allen [Docket No. 97 ] is DENIED. (3) Wright Medical Technology's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Spineology, Inc.'s Expert, Dr. Robert Morgan [Docket No. 102 ] is DENIED. (4) Wright Medical Technology's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 107] is GRANTED. (5) Wright Medi cal Technology's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Spineology, Inc.'s Expert, Dr. Timothy Nantell [Docket No. 111 ] is DENIED. (6) Count I and Count II of Spineology's Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (7) Count I and Count II of Wright Medical Technology's counterclaims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (8) Claims 15, 21, 22, 23, and 35 of United States Reissued Patent No. RE42,757 are invalid. Count III of Wright Medical Technology's counterclaims is otherwise DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on July 25, 2017. (CBC)
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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.
Why Is My Information Online?