Legal Opinion
Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Texas
Decided April 20, 2017No. CIVIL ACTION No. 1:14-cv-104PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ENHANCED DAMAGES AND DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
Ron Clark, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Dr. Mark A. Barry brought suit, asserting that Defendant Medtronic, Inc. indirectly infringed two patents,1 U.S. Patent No. 7,670,358 (“the ’358 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,361,121 (“the ’121 Patent”), which relate to a system and method of aligning spinal vertebrae to correct common spinal deformities like scoliosis. After a six-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict, finding in favor of Dr. Barry on every issue, including indirect infringement,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon HealthSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2016
- The Read Corporation and F.T. Read & Sons, Inc. v. Portec, Inc., D/B/A Portec/kolberg DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- I4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2014
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019
- Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2017
- Canon, Inc. v. Color Imaging, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2018
- Acantha LLC v. DePuy Synthes Sales IncDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2019
- American Technical Ceramics Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2020
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.