§Why CasetextPricing

Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Limited et al

REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Compel Defendants Merial Limited and Merial SAS to Make 30

4 Cited authorities

  1. Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,776 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

  2. Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works

    575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978)   Cited 394 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if damages are not measured by lost profits, then the patent owner is entitled to a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. § 284

  3. United States v. M T Mortg. Corp.

    235 F.R.D. 11 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 29 times
    Finding a Rule 30(b) deponent inadequate where she responded "I don't know" to numerous questions

  4. Canal Barge Company v. Commonwealth Edison Company

    Case No. 98 C 0509 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 19, 2001)   Cited 4 times

    Case No. 98 C 0509 July 19, 2001 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Nan R. Nolan, Magistrate Judge Canal Barge Company (Canal Barge) has filed a Complaint against Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) seeking payment of two invoices for maintenance and insurance charges incurred in 1996-1997 for the upkeep of barges subject to a contractual agreement between the parties. ComEd admits that it failed to pay the amounts billed in the two invoices, and is asserting in its counter claim that Canal Barge billed