Cases

669 F.Supp.2d 701 (2009) Jan HUGHES, Plaintiff v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:08cv79KS-MTP. United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division. November 12, 2009. *702 Donald James Blackwood, Jr., Lindsey McGee Turk, Robert L. Goza, Jr., Copeland, Cook, Taylor & Bush, Pa, Rid

635 F.Supp.2d 361 (2009) CORDIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., Defendants. Civ. No. 08-779-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. July 21, 2009. *362 Steven J. Balick, Esquire, John G. Day, Esquire and Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esquire of Ashby & Geddes, Wilming

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<

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CONNIE HAGAN AND ROY DALE HAGAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) C.A. No.: N20C-10-208 PEL v. ) ) Boston Scientific Corporation ) (D/B/A Mansfield Scientific, Inc.) ) And Micr

MARCUS, Circuit Judge: In this products liability suit, Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) appeals from various orders and a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Amal Eghnayem. Eghnayem alleged substantial injuries caused by the Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit, a transvaginal mesh prescription medical device manufactured and sold b

751 F.Supp.2d 962 (2010) Sallie MANESS, Plaintiff, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC, et al., Defendants. No. 3:10-CV-178. United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville. November 4, 2010. *963 Danny M. Hryhorchuk, The Law Officer of Danny Hryhorchuk, Morristown, TN, for Plaintiff. Samuel L. Felker, Shayne R. Clinton, Jody Eli

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ANDREW J. GUILFORD, District Judge. Plaintiff Robert Erickson (“Plaintiff’) sued Defendants Boston Scientific Corporation and Guidant Corporation (together, “Defendants”) for manufacturing and selling allegedly defective cardiac pacemakers that were surgically implanted in Plaintiff. Defendants now file a

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc EVE SHERRER, ) Opinion issued October 13, 2020 ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SC97465 ) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

532 F.3d 1330 (2008) G. David JANG, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and Scimed Life Systems, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 2007-1385. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. July 15, 2008. *1331 Thomas C. Mundell, Mundell, Odlum & Haws, LLP of Westlake Village, CA, argued for Plaintiff-A

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 04-1801 04-2291 RUBEN CARNERO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. Distr

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RUBEN CASTILLO, District Judge. Body Science, LLC (“Body Science” or “Plaintiff’), brings this patent infringement action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. against Boston Scientific Corporation (“Boston Scientific”), LifeWatch Services, Inc. (“LifeWatch”), Philips Electronics North America Corporation, doing business as Philips Healthcare (“Philips”), Pola

792 N.E.2d 296 (2003) 204 Ill.2d 640 275 Ill.Dec. 65 Brenda BRANDT, Appellant, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION (Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center, Appellee). No. 93982. Supreme Court of Illinois. June 5, 2003. *297 Gary K. Laatsch and Martin Whittaker, of Pavalon, Gifford, Laatsch &

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Ruben Carnero (“Carnero”) appeals from judgments of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing his federal and state law complaints against Boston Scientific Corporation (“BSC”). Both complaints alleged that BSC had terminated him in retaliation for “whistleblowing” — for telling BSC tha

Docket No. 93982–Agenda 11–March 2003. BRENDA BRANDT, Appellant, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION (Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center, Appellee). Filed June 5, 2003 JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Brenda Brandt, suffered severe complications following the surgical implantation of a medical device that was later recalled by the manufacturer for

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-

Case: 20-1415 Document: 62 Page: 1 Filed: 03/15/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BASF PLANT SCIENCE, LP, Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION, Defendant-Cross-Appellant ------------------------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1527 ALEXANDRA E. MELINO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]

Case: 20-1415 Document: 62 Page: 1 Filed: 03/15/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BASF PLANT SCIENCE, LP, Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION, Defendant-Cross-Appellant ------------------------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC

Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and

983 F.Supp. 245 (1997) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP., Plaintiff, Defendant-in-Counterclaim, v. SCHNEIDER (EUROPE) AG, and Schneider (USA) Inc., Defendants and Counterclaimants, v. SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-in-Counterclaim. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. and Scimed Life Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., and Schneider (Europe) AG, and Schneider (USA), Inc. Defendants. CIV. A