Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific, et al
| 1:2003cv00027 |
| January 13, 2003 |
| US District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Patent Office |
| Sue L. Robinson |
| Both |
| Federal Question |
| 35:271 Patent Infringement |
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
549
MEMORANDUM ORDER re: pretrial evidentiary issues. ORDER denying 514 MOTION for Summary Judgment [BSC's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Lost Profits Based on Cordis' Infringing Sales], denying 485 MOTION for Reconsideration Of One Aspect Of This Court's Memorandum Order Dated September 30, 2009 (D.I. 478), denying 501 MOTION to Preclude Damages Calculations of Creighton G. Hoffman for Failure to Support Application of the Entire Market Value of a Drug-Elut ing Stent (Daubert Motion) MOTION to Preclude Damages Calculations of Creighton G. Hoffman for Failure to Support Application of the Entire Market Value of a Drug-Eluting Stent (Daubert Motion), denying 523 . Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 1/28/2010. (nmf)
|
|
Filing
478
MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 9/30/2009. (nmf)
|
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 Delaware 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
| Search for this case: Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific, et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
