Legal Opinion
C.R. Bard, Inc. And Davol Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided October 29, 2004No. 04-1135PublishedCited by 332 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MICHEL, Circuit Judge.
C.R. Bard, Inc. and its subsidiary, Davol Inc., (collectively, “Bard”) appeal from the December 10, 2003, final judgment of non-infringement of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,356,432 (“ ’432 patent”) in favor of United States Surgical Corp. (“U.S. Surgical”). The appeal was submitted for decision following oral argument on September 8, 2004. Because the district court did not err in construing the mesh surgical plug of claim 20 as requiring a pleated surface, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
This patent ease involves a device used to repair hernias. As explained by the district court,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Liebel-Flarsheim Company and Mallinckrodt Inc. v. Medrad, Inc., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Autogiro Company of America v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by332 opinions
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
- 3m Innovative Properties v. Tredegar CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
327 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.