Litigation Details for Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation (D. Or. 2017)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation (D. Or. 2017)
Docket | ⤷ Try a Trial | Date Filed | 2017-10-24 |
Court | District Court, D. Oregon | Date Terminated | |
Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | |
Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | |
Parties | ADASA INC.; AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION | ||
Patents | 10,071,977; 10,130,598; 10,155,801; 10,201,672; 10,525,114; 10,525,120; 10,525,124; 6,437,165; 6,525,242; 6,713,662; 7,143,812; 7,285,668; 7,544,713; 7,556,798; 7,598,271; 7,662,143; 7,713,570; 7,807,689; 7,807,708; 7,867,114; 8,071,525; 8,112,609; 8,114,598; 8,133,970; 8,133,977; 8,609,112; 8,708,437; 8,841,287; 9,114,451; 9,155,699; 9,556,260; 9,801,977 | ||
Attorneys | Alan J. Thayer , Jr.; Angela E. Addae; Balazs Takacs; Brenna K. Legaard; Brett M. Pinkus; Cristin A. Wagner; Glenn S. Orman; Johnathan E. Mansfield; Jonathan T. Suder; Richard A. Wojcio , Jr.; William F. Abrams | ||
Firms | Friedman, Suder & Cooke; Harris Bricken McVay, LLP; Schwabe Williamson and Wyatt PC; Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt; Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. | ||
Link to Docket | External link to docket |
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation
Biologic Drugs cited in Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation
The biologic drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , ⤷ Try a Trial , and ⤷ Try a Trial .
Details for Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation (D. Or. 2017)
Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
---|---|---|---|---|
2020-04-30 | 165 | Opinion and Order | ORDER Case 6:17-cv-01685-MK Document 165 Filed 04/30/20 Page 6 of 10 …abstracted from 6 – OPINION AND ORDER Case 6:17-cv-01685-MK Document 165 Filed 04…Def.’s Mot. J. 6-7, ECF No. 115 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2006)); Def.’… PACER Document Case 6:17-cv-01685-MK Document 165 Filed 04/30/20 Page …– OPINION AND ORDER Case 6:17-cv-01685-MK Document 165 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 | External link to document |
2020-04-30 | 166 | Opinion and Order | ‘967 Patent are patentable. Am. Compl. Ex. A, 42, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, ECF No. 71-1. Plaintiff…claims from the ‘967 Patent as issued in the Reexamination Certificate. ECF No. 71. Defendant filed an …Kaufman Co., Inc. v. Lantech, Inc., 807 F.2d 970, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (emphasis added). The question …that Defendant infringed its U.S. Patent No. 9,798,967 (“ ‘967 Patent”). ECF No. 1. Defendant filed an…, 42, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, ECF No. 71-1 (emphasis in original); see also Am. Resp. Final | External link to document |
2020-04-30 | 167 | Opinion and Order | the serial number field.” The ‘198 Patent, 18:34-38, ECF No. 130-14. Defendant claims that “[t]his revision…McAllister Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, ECF No. 130-8; Engels Decl. ¶ 62, ECF No. 130-4. Specifically, the “Ad Hoc Mode…” Engels Decl. ¶ 63, ECF No. 130-4; McAllister Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, ECF No. 130-8. Defendant does not refute…Decl. ¶¶ 43-44, ECF No. 130-4 (citing 2008 Application [0015], [0049], ECF No. 130-3) (emphasis supplied… ¶ 52, ECF No. 130-4 (citing the 2008 Application, [0049], [0051], [0015] ECF No. 130-3) (emphasis supplied | External link to document |
>Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |