1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 511 F.3d
  5. 511 F.3d 1157 (2008)
 

CORDIS CORP. v. MEDTRONIC AVE, INC.

Nos. 2006-1393, 2006-1394, 2006-1395, 2006-1396, 2006-1415, 2006-1416.

511 F.3d 1157 (2008)

CORDIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. MEDTRONIC AVE, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (formerly known as Scimed Life Systems, Inc.), Defendants-Appellants. Medtronic Ave, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cordis Corporation, Johnson and Johnson, and Expandable Grafts Partnership, Defendants-Appellees. Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (formerly known as Scimed Life Systems, Inc.), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ethicon, Inc., Cordis Corporation, and Johnson & Johnson Interventional Systems Co., Defendants-Cross Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

January 7, 2008.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Gregory L. Diskant, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, of New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-cross appellant/defendant-appellees/defendants-cross appellant Cordis Corporation, et al. With him on the brief were Eugene M. Gelernter, William F. Cavanaugh, Jr., Michael J. Timmons, Scott B. Howard, and Kathleen M. Crotty.

David M. Underhill, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant/plaintiff-appellant Medtronic Ave, Inc. On the brief were William P. Atkins, George M. Sirilla, and Scott J. Pivnick, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, of McLean, VA.

John M. Desmarais, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, of New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellants/plaintiffs-appellants Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. On the brief were George E. Badenoch, Walter E. Hanley, Jr., Charles R. Brainard, Albert J. Breneisen, Mark A. Chapman, and Huiya Wu, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, of New York, NY.

Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and, KEELEY, Chief District Judge.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

These consolidated appeals arise from two related cases in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In both cases, Cordis Corp. alleged that the defendants had infringed its patents covering vascular stents that are used to treat coronary artery disease. After separate trials, Cordis obtained jury verdicts of infringement against defendant Medtronic AVE, Inc., ("AVE") in the first case and codefendants Boston Scientific...

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