BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES

No. 2010-1510.

682 F.3d 1003 (2012)

BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC. and David Goldfarb, M.D., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, and C.R. Bard, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 14, 2012.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Frank P. Porcelli , Fish & Richardson, P.C., of Boston, MA, filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for the defendant/counterclaimant-appellant. With him on the petition was John A. Dragseth. Of counsel on the petition were John S. Campbell , W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., of Newark, DE, and David H. Pfeffer of Boca Raton, FL.

John C. O'Quinn , Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, of Washington, DC, filed a response to the petition for the plaintiffs/counterclaim defendants-appellees and counterclaim defendant-appellee. With him on the response were Nathan S. Mammen , William H. Burgess , and Dennis J. Abdelnour. Of counsel on the response were Steven C. Cherny of New York, New York; and Gregory G. Garre and Maximilian A. Grant , Latham & Watkins LLP, of Washington, DC; and Andrew M. Federhar , Fennemore Craig P.C., of Phoenix, AZ; and John L. Strand , Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., of Boston, MA.

Paul D. Clement , Bancroft PLLC, of Washington, DC, for amici curiae Verizon Communications Inc. and Intel Corp. With him on the brief was D. Zachary Hudson. Of counsel on the brief for amicus curiae Verizon Communications Inc. were John Thorne and Gail F. Levine , Verizon Communications Inc., of Arlington, VA; and for amicus curiae Intel Corp. was Tina M. Chappell , Intel Corporation, of Chandler, AZ. Michelle K. Lee , Google Inc., of Mountain View, CA, for amicus curiae Google Inc. With her on the brief was Suzanne Michel.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge GAJARSA. Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.


GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

I. Introduction

In deciding the present appeal, this court determined that the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ("trial court") was correct in its judgment and affirmed all of the conclusions reached by the trial court. See Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 670 F.3d 1171 (Fed.Cir.2012). The appellant...

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