Cases

679 F.Supp.2d 539 (2010) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC. and Cordis Corporation, Defendants. Civ. Nos. 07-333-SLR, 07-348-SLR, 07-409-SLR, 07-765-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. January 20, 2010. *542 Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire, Karen L. Pa

647 F.Supp.2d 369 (2009) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC. and Cordis Corporation, Defendants. Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., Cordis Corporation and Wyeth, Defendants. Civ. Nos. 07-333-SLR, 07-348-SLR, 07-409-SLR, 07-765-SLR. United States Dis

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, coneurringin-part. I agree with the majority that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,217,286 (the “'7286 patent”); 7,223,286; 7,229,473 (collectively, the “1997 patents”); and 7,300,662 (the “'662 patent”) are invalid, but would hold the 1997 patents invalid for lack of enablement. Therefore, I concur only in judgment as to the 1997 patents. I join fully the majority’s opinio

532 F.Supp.2d 648 (2008) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC. and Cordis Corporation, Defendants. Civ. Nos. 07-333-SLR, 07-348-SLR, 07-409-SLR, 07-765-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. January 24, 2008. *649 *650

ORDER The parties having so agreed, it is ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).

ORDER The parties having so agreed, it is ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).

554 F.3d 982 (2009) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC. and Boston Scientific Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CORDIS CORPORATION and Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. No. 2008-1073. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. January 15, 2009. *983 Gregory L. Diskant, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

483 F.Supp.2d 390 (2007) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC. and Boston Scientific Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. CORDIS CORPORATION and Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Defendants. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and Boston Scientific Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Cordis Corporation, Guidant Corporation, Guidant Sales Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Inc., and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Defendants. Civ. Nos. 03-

434 F.Supp.2d 308 (2006) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC. and BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. CORDIS CORPORATION and JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., Defendants. No. CIV. 03-283-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. June 15, 2006. *309 *310 *311<

392 F.Supp.2d 676 (2005) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC. and Boston Scientific Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. CORDIS CORPORATION and Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Defendants. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and Boston Scientific Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Cordis Corporation, Guidant Corporation, Guidant Sales Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Inc., and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Defendants. Nos. CIV. 03-

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM. Co-defendants Boston Scientific Corp. and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., (collectively, “BSC”) have filed a petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc. Among its arguments, BSC asserts that rehearing is warranted because the panel failed to direct the district court to grant BSC a new trial on the issue of obviousness with respect to claim 44 of U.S. Patent

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KULWINDER KAUR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No.: N19C-07-117 PEL ) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC ) CORPORATION (d/b/a/ ) MANSFIELD SCIENTIFIC, INC. ) & MICROVASIVE INC.), ) ) Defendant. ) ) OPINION AND

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ZELDA GUNTER AND ) LONNIE GUNTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) C.A. No.: N20C-11-032 PEL v. ) ) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC ) CORPORATION,

431 F.Supp.2d 461 (2006) CORDIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., and Medtronic Ave, Inc. Defendants. Medtronic Ave, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Cordis Corporation, Johnson & Johnson and Expandable Grafts Partnership, Defendants. Boston Scientific Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Cordis Corporation, Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Interventional Systems Co., Defendants.

431 F.Supp.2d 465 (2006) CORDIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., and Medtronic Ave, Inc. Defendants. Medtronic Ave, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Cordis Corporation, Johnson & Johnson and Expandable Grafts Partnership, Defendants. No. CIV.A. 97-550-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. May 16, 2006.

431 F.Supp.2d 442 (2006) CORDIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., and Medtronic Ave, Inc. Defendants. Boston Scientific Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Cordis Corporation, Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Interventional Systems Co., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 97-550-SLR, CIV.A. 98-19-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware.

339 F.3d 1352 CORDIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.MEDTRONIC AVE, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant, andBoston Scientific Corporation and Scimed Life Systems, Inc., Defendants.Medtronic Ave, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, andArterial Vascular Engineering, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,v.Cordis Corporation, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant, andJohnson and Johnson and Expandable Grafts Partnership, Defe

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. This suit was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by Scimed Life Systems, Inc. (“Scimed”), Boston Scientific Corporation, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., and Medinol, Ltd. (“Medinol”) (collectively “plaintiffs”). The plaintiffs allege Johnson & Johnson, Cordis Corporation, and Johnson *730& Johnson

(2008) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. No. C 02-00790 SI. United States District Court, N.D. California. February 19, 2008. ORDER RE: VARIOUS POST-TRIAL MOTIONS SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. On February 15, 2008, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiffs' and defendants' moti

481 F.Supp.2d 1018 (2007) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al., Defendants. No. C 02-00790 SI. United States District Court, N.D. California. March 14, 2007. *1019 *1020 *1021 Michael Richard Headley, Fish &