The Research Foundation of State University of New York v. Nektar Therapeutics, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Northern District The Research Foundation of State University of New York v. Nektar Therapeutics, Inc.

The Research Foundation of State University of New York v. Nektar Therapeutics, Inc.

Plaintiff:	The Research Foundation of State University of New York
Defendant:	Nektar Therapeutics, Inc.
Case Number:	1:2009cv01292
Filed:	November 18, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Albany Office
County:	Albany
Presiding Judge:	David R. Homer
Presiding Judge:	Gary L. Sharpe
Nature of Suit:	Plaintiff
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 15, 2013	Filing 167 MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That Nektar's letter motion seeking permission to file corrected versions of its memorandum of law and statement of material facts (Dkt. No. 156) is GRANTED and those documents are deemed FILED. That Nektar 9;s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 154, 156) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: GRANTED to the extent that RF SUNY's claim for specific performance is DISMISSED as moot. DENIED in all other respects. That breach is esta blished with respect to the second Bayer milestone payment, leaving only the issue of damages for resolution at trial. That RF SUNY's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 155) is DENIED. That Nektar's motion for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence (Dkt. No. 153) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/15/2013. (jel, )

Date Filed

Document Text

May 15, 2013

Filing 167 MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That Nektar's letter motion seeking permission to file corrected versions of its memorandum of law and statement of material facts (Dkt. No. 156) is GRANTED and those documents are deemed FILED. That Nektar 9;s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 154, 156) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: GRANTED to the extent that RF SUNY's claim for specific performance is DISMISSED as moot. DENIED in all other respects. That breach is esta blished with respect to the second Bayer milestone payment, leaving only the issue of damages for resolution at trial. That RF SUNY's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 155) is DENIED. That Nektar's motion for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence (Dkt. No. 153) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/15/2013. (jel, )

Access additional case information on PACER

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 New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: The Research Foundation of State University of New York v. Nektar Therapeutics, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: The Research Foundation of State University of New York
Represented By:	David L. Nocilly
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Nektar Therapeutics, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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.

Why Is My Information Online?