Bard Peripheral Vasc, et al v. WL Gore & Associates, et al
| David Goldfarb and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. |
| W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. |
| W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. |
| David Goldfarb, C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. |
| 2:2003cv00597 |
| March 28, 2003 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Mary H Murguia |
| Property Rights: Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Defendant |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
1145
ORDER that Defendant's 1122 Request for Judicial Notice of Decision on Request for Reexamination of United States Patent No. 6,436,135 is denied as moot. ORDERED that Defendant's 1113 Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative to Amend the Judgment is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 1109 Motion for Leave to Execute on the Judgment is granted regarding the final and non-appealable issues. Any stay previously issued by the Court concerning the final and non-appealable issues in the Amended Clerk's Judgment is lifted. Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed Order. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 10/16/2013.(LFIG)
|
|
Filing
951
REDACTED ORDER (Re: Sealed Order 941 , filed 3/31/09) ORDER denying 910 Motion to Strike the Sininger Declaration FURTHER ORDERED granting in part 868 Motion for Enhanced Damages. Plaintiffs' damages award is doubled from $185,589,871. 02 to $371,179,742.04. FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs' 850 Motion for Attorney Fees and Non-Taxable Costs. Plaintiffs are awarded $19 million in attorney fees and non-taxable costs. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 3/31/09. (MAP)
|
|
Filing
942
ORDER granting 852 Motion for Prejudgment Interest; granting 854 Motion to Supplement; granting 855 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting in part and denying in part 856 Motion for Permanent Injunction; granting 918 Motion for Leave to File. W ithin 15 days of this Order, after having met and conferred, the Parties shall file a joint proposed schedule for the Courts approval. Any proposed schedule must be consistent with the dictates of the instant Order. The Court further notes that the issue of supplemental damages will be decided based on the Parties briefs, along with any exhibits.Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 3/31/09.(KSP)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
