JMOL and new trial motions denied after verdict of infringement and nonobviousness following remand
Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al., Cons. C.A. 97-550-SLR, May 16, 2006 (corrected).
Robinson, J. Medtronic’s motion for new trial on Cordis’ patent infringement claims and Medtronic’s invalidity counter-claims, and Medtronic’s motion for JMOL on infringement are denied.
The patent is directed to a slotted tube stent. In 2002, a jury found Medtronics infringed Cordis’ patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court granted JMOL of noninfringement finding Cordis was estopped from asserting doctrine of equivalents infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed the claim construction, and after retrial a jury found the patents to be infringed and not obvious. The JMOL argument centered on the “substantially uniform thickness” and measurement of the thickness. The new trial was requested due to an alleged incomplete and misleading record on the same limitation. The motions were denied.
Robinson, J. Medtronic’s motion for new trial on Cordis’ patent infringement claims and Medtronic’s invalidity counter-claims, and Medtronic’s motion for JMOL on infringement are denied.
The patent is directed to a slotted tube stent. In 2002, a jury found Medtronics infringed Cordis’ patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court granted JMOL of noninfringement finding Cordis was estopped from asserting doctrine of equivalents infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed the claim construction, and after retrial a jury found the patents to be infringed and not obvious. The JMOL argument centered on the “substantially uniform thickness” and measurement of the thickness. The new trial was requested due to an alleged incomplete and misleading record on the same limitation. The motions were denied.
