Cases

ORDER ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are Defendant Med-tronic, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 7), and the responsive pleadings thereto. After reviewing the pleadings, the relevant law, and the factual record, the Court issues the following order. I. Background Plaintiff Carolyn Green Gates (“Carolyn Gates”) brings this action against D

840 F.Supp. 396 (1994) Catherine W. GRIFFIN v. MEDTRONIC, INC. Civ. No. S 93-60. United States District Court, D. Maryland. January 11, 1994. *397 Jerome J. Seidenman, Kristen A. Brinster, Seidenman, Sutherland & Lynn, PA, Baltimore, MD, Carol A. Husum, Kalamazoo, MI, for plaintiff. Benjamin R. Goertemiller, Howell, Ga

GORSUCH, Circuit Judge. Some medical devices are so risky they can’t be sold without the federal government’s prior approval. While even relatively simple things like bandages face some degree of federal oversight, manufacturers of pacemakers, heart valves, and the like must prove the “safety and effectiveness” of their devices to the FDA’s satisfaction before offering them for sale. Batteries of tests must be performed and

512 F.Supp.2d 913 (2007) Jeffrey A. KOZAK, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC, INC. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. H-03-4400. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. March 14, 2007. *914 *915 J. Graham Hill, Christopher Benjamin Dove, Tanya Lynn Chaney

ORDER TIM LEONARD, District Judge. Plaintiff, Dr. Jan K. Voda, is the holder of United States Patent No. 6,083,213 (“the '213 patent”), which was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 4, 2000. Exhibit 1 to Complaint (Doc. No. 1). The '213 patent contains method claims; that is, it relates to plaintiffs inventive technique for using a guiding catheter to perform angioplast

485 F.Supp.2d 538 (2007) ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC. and Guidant Sales Corp., Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. and Medtronic USA, Inc., Defendants. Civ. Nos. 98-80-SLR, 98-314-SLR, 98-316-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. April 23, 2007. *539 *540 Frederick L. Co

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CATHERINE W. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 94-1219 MEDTRONIC, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederick N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-93-60-S) Argued: September 27, 1994 Decided: April 30, 1996 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and MICHAEL, Senior Unite

611 F.Supp. 1498 (1985) MEDTRONIC, INC. and Medtronic Puerto Rico, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. DAIG CORPORATION, Defendant. PACESETTER SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC, INC. and Medtronic Puerto Rico, Inc., Defendants. Civ. Nos. 4-79-256, 3-83-251. United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Third and Fourth Divisions. June 24, 1985.

MARKEY, Chief Judge. Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Minnesota holding U.S. Patents 3,391,697 (Greatbatch), 3,833,005 (Wingrove) and 3,901,247 (Walmsley) invalid, and finding no infringement. We modify and affirm. Background

Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge MICHAEL wrote the opinion, in which Judge WIDENER and Judge MOTZ joined. OPINION MICHAEL, Senior District Judge: Catherine Griffin appeals the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”) on the grounds that Griffin’s claims are preempted by 21 U

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 21-1951 CONFORMIS, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. AETNA, INC. and AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Indira Talwani, U.S. District Judge]

Case: 19-2255 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 08/03/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC., THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. 10X GENOMICS INC., Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2019-2255, 2019-2285 _____

Case: 24-2274 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2024-2274 ______________________ A

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge. Three scientists walk into a lab. They emerge with an important scientific discovery but, as is frequently the case, a contentious patent dispute later arises. After nearly a decade of litigation that has spanned two federal judges, and produced enough pages of memoranda to clear a forest, Plaintiffs still have not officially unlocked the doors

MOORE, Circuit Judge. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. and BRP U.S. Inc. (collectively, “BRP”) appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s denial of judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,568,969 (“’969 patent”) and 6,793,-545 (“’545 patent”) would have been

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PAUL R. WALLACE LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER JUDGE 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 10400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 (302) 255-0660

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ex rel. ) KATHLEEN JENNINGS, Attorney ) General of the State of Delaware, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N20C-09-097 MMJ CCLD ) BP AMERICA INC., BP P.L.C., ) CHEVRON CORPORATION, ) CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., ) CONOCOPHILLIPS,

OPINION CLEARY, Chief Judge In this appeal from a judgment in favor of appellant Staffing Specifix, Inc. (Staffing) following a jury trial on its breaeh-of-contract, fraud-in-the-inducement, and defamation claims, Staffing asserts that the district court erred by (1) dismissing its claim of conversion on summary judgment, (2) dismissing its claim of civil theft on summary judgment, (3) denying its motion

ORDER ON PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS WILLIAM H. ORRICK, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION This is a patent infringement action in which plaintiff Word to Info, Inc. (“WTI”) accuses defendant Google, Inc. of infringing seven related patents claiming techniques for natural language processing,1 Google filed this partial motion to dismiss

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC. AND NEXT SOFTWARE, INC. (formerly known as NeXT Computer, Inc.), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOTOROLA, INC. (now known as Motorola Solu- tions, Inc.) AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Defendants-Cross Appellants. ______________________ 2012-1548, -1549 ________________