Cases 21 - 30 of 41
Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
as 1:2013cv10765
Plaintiff:
Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. , Neurografix and Image-Based Surgicenter Corporation
Defendant:
The Trustee's of Columbia University in the City of New York
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
NeuroGrafix et al v. Brainlab, Inc. et al
as 1:2013cv10758
Plaintiff:
Neurografix , Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. and Image-Based Surgicenter Corporation
Defendant:
Brainlab, Inc. , BRAINLAB AG and Brainlab Medizinische Computersysteme GmbH
Counter_claimant:
Brainlab, Inc. and BRAINLAB AG
Counter_defendant:
Image-Based Surgicenter Corporation , Neurografix and Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
In re: NeuroGrafix ('360) Patent Litigation
as 1:2013md02432
Defendant:
St. Mary's Health Care System, Inc., The University of Chicago, Brainlab Medizinische Computersysteme GmbH and others
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Consolidated Plaintiffs
In Re:
NeuroGrafix ('360) Patent Litigation
Consolidated Defendant:
Consolidated Defendants
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338
NeuroGrafix et al v. University of Chicago Medical Center, The et al
as 1:2013cv10759
Plaintiff:
Neurografix , Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. and Image-Based Surgicenter Corporation
Defendant:
University of Chicago Medical Center and University of Chicago, The
Counter_claimant:
University of Chicago Medical Center and University of Chicago, The
Counter_defendant:
University of Chicago Medical Center , University of Chicago, The , Image-Based Surgicenter Corporation and others
Movant:
Philips Electronics North America Corporation
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
NeuroGrafix et al v. Medtronic Navigation, Inc. et al
as 1:2012cv02977
Plaintiff:
NeuroGrafix , Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. and Image-Based Surgicenter Corporation
Defendant:
Medtronic Navigation, Inc. and Medtronic, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1126 Patent Infringement
Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. et al v. Cornell University et al
as 1:2012cv08022
Plaintiff:
Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. , NeuroGrafix and Image-Based Sugicenter Corporation
Defendant:
Cornell University, New York-Presbyterian HealthCare System, Inc. and Weill Cornell Imaging at New York-Presbyterian
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
as 1:2012cv08023
Plaintiff:
Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. , NeuroGrafix and Image-Based Surgicenter Corporation
Defendant:
The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. et al v. The Hospital for Special Surgery Pho, Inc. et al
as 1:2012cv07998
Plaintiff:
Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. , NeuroGrafix and Image-Based Surgicenter Corporation
Defendant:
The Hospital for Special Surgery Pho, Inc. and New York Society for the Relief of the Ruptured and Crippled, Maintaining the Hospital for Special Surgery
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
NeuroGrafix et al v. Brainlab, Inc. et al
as 1:2012cv06075
Plaintiff:
NeuroGrafix , Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. and Image-Based Surgicenter Corporation
Defendant:
Brainlab, Inc., BRAINLAB AG and Brainlab Medizinische Computersysteme GmbH
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
NeuroGrafix et al v. University of Chicago Medical Center, The et al
as 1:2012cv06068
Plaintiff:
NeuroGrafix , Neurography Institute Medical Associates, Inc. and Image-Based Surgicenter Corporation
Defendant:
University of Chicago Medical Center, The and University of Chicago, The
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
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.
