1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 923 F.Supp.
  5. 923 F.Supp. 61 (1996)
 

GENENTECH, INC. v. NOVO NORDISK A/S

Nos. 95 Civ. 3474 (CBM), 94 Civ. 8634, 95 Civ. 0110 and 96 Civ. 1755.

923 F.Supp. 61 (1996)

GENENTECH, INC., Plaintiff, v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, Novo Nordisk of North America, Inc., Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bio-Technology General Corp. and Bio-Technology General (Israel) Ltd., Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

April 30, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Rogers & Wells by Leora Ben-Ami, Philip E. Roux, for Genentech, Inc.

Graham & James, L.L.P. by Albert L. Jacobs, for Novo Nordisk A/S, et al.

Morgan & Finnegan, L.L.P. by John C. Vassil, Kurt E. Richter, Kenneth H. Sonnenfeld.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MOTLEY, District Judge.

This court decided on August 3, 1995 that the law firm Morgan & Finnegan would be disqualified from representing Novo Nordisk A/S, et al. ("Novo") in all subsequent proceedings in the above-captioned case. Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") had moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Novo from infringing Genentech's patent for human growth hormone product (the "'980 patent"). From May 22, 1995 to June...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases