1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 339 F.3d
  5. 339 F.3d 1352 (2003)
 

CORDIS CORP. v. MEDTRONIC AVE, INC.

Nos. 02-1457, 02-1458, 02-1481, 02-1482.

339 F.3d 1352 (2003)

CORDIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDTRONIC AVE, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant, and Boston Scientific Corporation and Scimed Life Systems, Inc., Defendants. Medtronic Ave, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, and Arterial Vascular Engineering, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. Cordis Corporation, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant, and Johnson and Johnson and Expandable Grafts Partnership, Defendants.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Rehearing and Rehearing Denied: October 3, 2003.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Gregory L. Diskant, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, of New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant Cordis Corporation. With him on the brief were Eugene M. Gelernter, William F. Cavanaugh, Jr., and Michael J. Timmons.

Raphael V. Lupo, McDermott Will & Emery, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-cross appellant Medtronic Ave, Inc., and counterclaim defendant-appellee Arterial Vascular Engineering, Inc. With him on the brief were Donna M. Tanguay, Mark G. Davis, and Natalia V. Blinkova. Of counsel on the brief were D. Michael Underhill, Richard S. Meyer, Eric J. Maurer, and Gerald P. Konkel, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, of Washington, DC.

George E. Badenoch, Kenyon & Kenyon, of New York, NY, for amicus curiae Boston Scientific Corporation, Scimed Life Systems, Inc, and Medinol Ltd. With him on the brief was Charles R. Brainard.

Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied: October 3, 2003.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

Cordis Corporation appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Cordis seeks review of (1) a summary judgment that defendant Medtronic AVE, Inc., ("AVE") did not literally infringe two of Cordis's patents, and (2) a judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") that AVE did not infringe those patents under the doctrine of equivalents. Because...

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