Cases 1 - 7 of 7
United States of America v. Fogarty, M.D. et al
as 4:2013cv05936
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Thomas Fogarty, Fogarty Engineering Inc, Cardiovascular Concepts Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. ยง 3729
ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR V MEDTRONIC
as 09-1014
Plaintiff-Cross Appellant:
Advanced Cardiovascular Sys Inc. (nka Abbott Cardiovas Sys) and Guidant Sales Corporation (n/k/a Abbott Laboratories, Inc.)
Defendant-Appellant:
Medtronic USA, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (also known as Medtronic AVE, Inc.)
WYETH et al v. MEDTRONIC, INC. et al
as 3:2008cv01021
Plaintiff:
WYETH and CORDIS CORPORATION
Defendant:
MEDTRONIC, INC. and MEDTRONIC AVE, INC.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC V MEDTRONIC
as 06-1434
Plaintiff-Appellant:
Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (fka Scimed Life Systems Inc)
Defendant-Appellee:
Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (also known as Medtronic AVE, Inc.)
CORDIS CORP V MEDTRONIC AVE
as 06-1393
Defendant-Appellant:
Boston Scientific Corporation, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (fka Scimed Life Systems Inc) and Medtronic AVE, Inc. (also known as Medtronic Vascular, Inc.)
Plaintiff-Cross Appellant:
Cordis Corporation
Defendant/Cross Appellant:
Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Interventional Systems, Inc.
Defendant-Appellee:
Expandable Grafts Partnership and Johnson and Johnson
CORDIS CORP V MEDTRONIC AVE
as 02-1457
Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee:
ARTERIAL VASCULAR ENGINEERING, INC.
Amicus Curiae:
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, MEDINOL LTD. and SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC.
Plaintiff-Appellant:
CORDIS CORPORATION
Defendant/Cross Appellant:
MEDTRONIC AVE, INC.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC V MEDTRONIC AVE
as 02-1081
Plaintiff-Appellee:
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC., SCHNEIDER (EUROPE) GMBH and others
Defendant-Appellant:
MEDTRONIC AVE, INC., MEDTRONIC AVE, INC., MEDTRONIC AVE, INC. and others
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.
