Smith & Nephew, Inc. et al v. Arthrex, Inc.
| Smith & Nephew, Inc. and John O. Hayhurst |
| Arthrex, Inc. |
| 3:2008cv00714 |
| June 11, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland Office |
| Multnomah |
| Paul Papak |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
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
489
ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine 429 and Daubert 426 Motions and Defendant's Motions in Limine 411 are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated above. I sustain Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Lay Witness Narra tives as stated above. I sustain Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Trial Exhibit List and Second Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Wilson C. Hayes, Ph.D.. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike Plaintiffs' Supplemental Trial Exhibit List 450 and Second Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Wilson C. Hayes, Ph.D. 458 from the record. Signed on 02/06/2017 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (rs)
|
|
Filing
328
OPINION AND ORDER: Smith & Nephew's motion for summary judgment of infringement 224 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Arthrex's motions for summary judgment as of non-infringement 197 199 are DENIED. Finally, Smith & Nephew's motion for summary judgment as to reasonable royalty damages 267 is GRANTED. Signed on 6/15/16 by Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
|
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 Oregon 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.
