Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.”
Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.public domain
Case: 24-1398 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ VASCULAR SOLUTIONS LLC, TELEFLEX LLC, ARROW INTERNATIONAL LLC, TELEFLEX LIFE SCIENCES LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________
Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.public domain
Case: 24-1398 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ VASCULAR SOLUTIONS LLC, TELEFLEX LLC, ARROW INTERNATIONAL LLC, TELEFLEX LIFE SCIENCES LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________
Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.public domain
Case: 21-2357 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., Appellants v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L., Appellee ______________________ 2021-2357, 2021-2360, 2021-2364 ______________________ Appe
Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.public domain
Case: 21-2356 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 05/24/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., Appellants v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L., Appellee ______________________ 2021-2356, 2021-2358, 2021-2361, 2021-2363, 21-2365 ___________________
Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.public domain
Case: 21-2356 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 05/24/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., Appellants v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L., Appellee ______________________ 2021-2356, 2021-2358, 2021-2361, 2021-2363, 21-2365 ___________________
Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp.public domain
526 F.Supp.2d 613 (2007) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-78. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. December 13, 2007. *614 Samuel Franklin Baxter, McKool Smith, Marshall, TX, Bradley Wayne Caldwell, Jason Dodd Cassady, Mar
Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.public domain
Case: 21-2357 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., Appellants v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L., Appellee ______________________ 2021-2357, 2021-2360, 2021-2364 ______________________ Appe
United States v. Medtronic, Inc.public domain
Smith, District Judge. *835In this case, the relator contends that the defendant, a medical device company, paid kickbacks to health care providers in violation of the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act, however, includes a public disclosure bar that prohibits lawsuits brought by relators where the relator's allegations of fraud have alread
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.public domain
OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The patent infringement action before the Court was brought by Plaintiffs W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., and Gore Enterprise Holdings, Inc.,1 (collectively “Gore”), against defendants Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic USA Inc., and Medtronic Vascular Inc., (collectively “Medtronic”). Th
CardioVention, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.public domain
483 F.Supp.2d 830 (2007) CARDIOVENTION, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. Civil No. 04-2669 (MJD/AJB). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. March 20, 2007. *831 *832 *833 Courtland C. Mer
Voda v. Medtronic Inc.public domain
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
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.public domain
778 F.Supp.2d 667 (2011) W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., and Gore Enterprise Holdings, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., and Medtronic USA, Inc., and Medtronic Vascular, Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:10cv441. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. April 20, 2011. *668 Ahmed Jamal Davis, Fish &
United States Ex Rel. Nowak v. Medtronic, Inc.public domain
806 F.Supp.2d 310 (2011) UNITED STATES of America et al., ex rel. Tricia NOWAK and Enda Dodd, Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant. Civil Action Nos. 1:08-cv-10368, 1:09-cv-11625. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 27, 2011. *314 Adam J. Schwartz, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Edward Notargiac
PROST, Circuit Judge. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, the assign-ee of U.S. Patent No. 7,892,281 (“'281 patent”), appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granting summary judgment to Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and Edwards Lifesciences (U.S.) Inc. (collectively, “Edwards”) of invalidity of certain
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. This case returns to the Federal Circuit on appeal of a district court decision on remand from an en banc decision of this court. The issue is willful infringement and its consequences, which this en banc court remanded for de novo determination as a matter of law, vacating the judgment entered on the jury verdict. The en banc court changed the standard and p
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC. AND DAVID GOLDFARB, M.D., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, AND C.R. BARD, INC., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge GAJARSA. Opinion coneurring-inpart and dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. I. Introduction In deciding the present appeal, this court determined that the United States *1005District Court for the District of Arizona (“trial court”) was correc
Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc.public domain
Case: 23-2045 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 03/21/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ABIOMED INC., ABIOMED R&D, INC., ABIOMED EUROPE GMBH, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2023-2045 ______________________ Appe
Raza v. SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA INC.public domain
607 F.Supp.2d 689 (2009) Syed Iqbal RAZA, M.D., Plaintiff, v. SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA INC. and Siemens Medical Solutions Health Services Corp., Defendants. C.A. No. 06-132-JJF. United States District Court, D. Delaware. April 16, 2009. *690 Martin S. Lessner, Esquire; Adam W. Poff, Esquire; Andrew A. Lundgren, Esquire of Yo
Butamax™ Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge 1. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff ButamaxTM Advanced Biofuels LLC (“Butamax”) filed three complaints against defendant Gevo, Inc. (“Gevo”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,241,878 (“the '878 patent”) (D.I. 1), on August 14, 2012;1 alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,273,558 (“the' '558 patent”) (Civ. No.