1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.2d
  4. 158 F.Supp.2d
  5. 158 F.Supp.2d 84 (2001)
 

MORPHOSYS AG v. CAMBRIDGE ANTIBODY TECH.

No. CIV. A. 99-1012(JR).

158 F.Supp.2d 84 (2001)

MORPHOSYS AG, Plaintiff, v. CAMBRIDGE ANTIBODY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Defendant.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

August 17, 2001.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John Skilton, David J. Harth, Mireya Llaurdao, Colin G. Sandercock, Paul M. Booth, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Washington DC, John Skilton, David J. Harth, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Madison, WI, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Keith J. Harrison, Steven Schaars, King, Pagano & Harrison, Washington, DC, David W. Clough, Audrey L. Bartnicki, Marshall, O'Toole, Gerstein, Murray & Borun, Timothy J. Vezeau, Jane J. Choi, Katten Muchin Zavis, Chicago, IL, Counsel for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROBERTSON, District Judge.

In April 1999, MorphoSys sued for a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe U.S. Patent Number 5,885,793 (the '793 patent), owned by Cambridge Antibody Limited (CAT) and the Medical Research Council (of the United Kingdom), and that the '793 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. CAT counterclaimed for infringement. After and in light of this Court's claim construction...

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