Edwards Lifesciences AG et al v. Corevalve Inc., et al
Plaintiff: Edwards Lifesciences AG and Edwards Lifesciences LLC
Defendant: Corevalve Inc.
Case Number: 1:2008cv00091
Filed: February 12, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Delaware
Office: Wilmington Office
County: XX Outside US
Presiding Judge: Unassigned Judge
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 15, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 596 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 548 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Edwards Lifesciences AG, Edwards Lifesciences LLC as therein set forth. A telephone conference is scheduled for May 21, 2014, at 10:00 AM. Signed by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 4/15/14. (mmm)
February 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 429 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 341 MOTION For Enhanced Damages Pursuant To 35 U.S.C. § 284 filed by Edwards Lifesciences AG, Edwards Lifesciences LLC, 356 MOTION for Permanent Injunction , Accounting and Related Relief filed by Edwards Lifes ciences AG, Edwards Lifesciences LLC, 348 MOTION to Stay re 324 Judgment, - Defendants' Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment Pending Post-Trial Motions filed by Medtronic CoreValve LLC, Corevalve Inc., 318 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law [Defendants' Renewed Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law] filed by Medtronic CoreValve LLC, Corevalve Inc., 417 MOTION to Supplement Court Record filed by Medtronic CoreValve LLC, Corevalve Inc., 320 MOTION for New Trial [Defendants' Motion for a New Trial Or Alternatively to Amend Judgment] filed by Medtronic CoreValve LLC, Corevalve Inc., 391 SEALED MOTION to Strike Under Local Rule 7.1.3(c)(2) Portions of Edwards' Reply Briefs in Support of Its Motions for Enhanced Damages and Attorneys' Fees re 377 Reply Brief, 380 Appendix, 376 Reply BriefSEALED MOTION to Strike Under Local Rule 7.1.3(c)(2) Portions of Edwards' Reply Briefs in Support of Its Motions for Enhanced Dam ages and Attorneys' Fees re 377 Reply Brief, 380 Appendix, 376 Reply Brief filed by Medtronic CoreValve LLC, Corevalve Inc., 339 MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 filed by Edwards Lifesciences AG, Edwards Lifesciences LLC, 344 MOTION for Prejudgment and Postjudgment Interest filed by Edwards Lifesciences AG, Edwards Lifesciences LLC. Signed by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 2/7/2011. (asw)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Edwards Lifesciences AG et al v. Corevalve Inc., et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Edwards Lifesciences AG
Represented By: Jack B. Blumenfeld
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Edwards Lifesciences LLC
Represented By: Jack B. Blumenfeld
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Corevalve Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?