New trial and JMOL on infringement and invalidity were denied
Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. et al. v. Cordis Corp. et al., No. 03-283-SLR, June 15, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for JMOL or new trial on infringement and invalidity is denied. Defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ reply brief is granted in part and denied in part. New arguments are stricken.
The patent-in-suit relates to a stint with a drug-eluting coating. The court struck portions of the reply brief claiming that an expert’s testimony was legally irrelevant because he did not apply the same level of skill in the art to his non-obviousness analysis as that instructed to the jury. The argument was stricken as violation of D. Del. LR.7.1.3(c)(2) in that this contention was not raised at trial nor in defendants’ opening brief. The judge denied JMOL finding that ample evidence supported the jury verdict. The motion for a new trial on infringement based on improper attorney arguments was denied. A motion for a new trial on invalidity based on nonobviousness was also denied. Substantial evidence of nonobviousness was presented at trial. A motion for a new trial based on “baseless and inflammatory accusation of copying” was denied. Defendants had not sought a curative instruction nor moved for a mistrial. No prejudice resulted.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for JMOL or new trial on infringement and invalidity is denied. Defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ reply brief is granted in part and denied in part. New arguments are stricken.
The patent-in-suit relates to a stint with a drug-eluting coating. The court struck portions of the reply brief claiming that an expert’s testimony was legally irrelevant because he did not apply the same level of skill in the art to his non-obviousness analysis as that instructed to the jury. The argument was stricken as violation of D. Del. LR.7.1.3(c)(2) in that this contention was not raised at trial nor in defendants’ opening brief. The judge denied JMOL finding that ample evidence supported the jury verdict. The motion for a new trial on infringement based on improper attorney arguments was denied. A motion for a new trial on invalidity based on nonobviousness was also denied. Substantial evidence of nonobviousness was presented at trial. A motion for a new trial based on “baseless and inflammatory accusation of copying” was denied. Defendants had not sought a curative instruction nor moved for a mistrial. No prejudice resulted.
