This post will track the issued remedies in the patent dispute between Bard Peripheral Vascular and WL Gore & Associates. The post will not cover patent invalidity decisions from the USPTO or the district court. The dispute started in 2003 with a complaint by Bard against Gore in the District of Arizona and ended in 2017 with a stipulated dismissal.
| Date | Issue | Case | Notes |
| 3/28/03 | Complaint | Bard I – District Court | Bard files suit against Gore for patent infringement regarding vascular grafts. |
| 12/11/07 | Jury Verdict | Bard I – District Court | The jury awards a verdict for Bard against Gore, awarding $102,081,578.82 in lost profits and $83,508,292.20 in a reasonable royalty (royalty rate of 10%), for a total of $185,589,871.02. The jury also finds that Gore’s infringement was willful. |
| 7/29/08 | JMOL Of No Willfulness Denied | Bard I – District Court | The court rejects Gore’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness. The trial record in this case provided sufficient evidence for the jury to have found willful infringement by clear and convincing evidence. |
| 7/29/08 | No Inequitable Conduct | Bard I – District Court | The court finds that Gore has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the inventor and his attorneys committed inequitable conduct during prosecution. Gore has not shown the requisite intent or bad faith. |
| 3/31/09 | New Trial Or Remittitur Denied | Bard I – District Court | The court denies Gore’s motion for a new trial or to reduce the jury verdict. The jury award was not grossly excessive given the contribution of plaintiff’s invention to the substantial commercial success of vascular grafts. Moreover the jury’s 10% royalty rate was supported by the record. |
| 3/31/09 | Permanent Injunction Denied
|
Bard I – District Court | The court denies Bard’s motion to permanently enjoin Gore from future development, manufacture and sale of products that infringe the patent. A fair and full amount of compensatory money damages, when combined with a progressive compulsory license, will adequately compensate Plaintiffs’ injuries. Given the utility of Gore’s infringing products in aiding vascular surgeons who perform life-saving medical treatments, sound public policy does not favor removing Gore’s items from the market. The court grants plaintiff’s motion for a compulsory license. |
| 3/31/09 | Enhanced Damages Granted | Bard I – District Court | The court grants Bard’s motion for enhanced damages, doubling the damages award from $185,589,871.02 to $371,179,742.04. Eight of the nine Read factors favor enhancement. Because three of the factors only somewhat favors enhancement, treble damages isn’t appropriate. |
| 3/31/09 | Attorney Fees Granted | Bard I – District Court | The court grants Bard’s motion for attorney fees, awarding plaintiff $19 million in attorney fees and costs. The jury verdict of willfulness is a sufficient basis for making the case exceptional. Moreover, the defendant has taken contradictory positions in this litigation that also justifies an award of fees. Pre-judgment interest of $1.9 million is awarded for the attorney fees. |
| 3/31/09 | Prejudgment Interest Granted | Bard I – District Court | The court grants Bard prejudgment interest of $18,558,987.10 on the jury verdict and of $1.9 million on the attorney fees. The prejudgment interest rate is 10%. |
| 7/9/10 | Supplemental Damages Granted | Bard I – District Court | The court awards Plaintiff supplemental damages. Bard is entitled to $44,556,381.24 of lost profits, and $64,440,740 of reasonable royalties for the period between 7/1/2007 and 3/31/2009. This amounts to a total of $108,897,121.24. The court declines to enhance these damages. |
| 7/21/10 | Ongoing Royalty Granted | Bard I – District Court | The court awards Bard an ongoing royalty with a range of royalty rates from 12.5% to 20% for Gore’s various types of infringing grafts. The royalty payments will end upon expiration of the patent. |
| 6/10/11 | Complaint | Gore I – District Court | Gore files suit against Bard for patent infringement regarding stent graphs. |
| 2/10/12 | Willfulness Finding, Enhancement, And Attorney Fees Affirmed | Bard I – Federal Circuit | The Federal Circuit affirms the willfulness finding because substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Gore willfully infringed the patent. The Federal Circuit affirms the enhancement of damages because the district court did not abuse its discretion. The Federal Circuit affirms the award of attorney fees because the district court did not abuse its discretion. |
| 2/10/12 | Ongoing Royalty Affirmed | Bard I – Federal Circuit | The Federal Circuit affirms the award of 12.5-20% as an ongoing royalty. The district court did not abuse its discretion in setting the rate. |
| 6/14/12 | Willfulness Finding, Enhancement, And Attorney Fees Vacated | Bard I – Federal Circuit | The Federal Circuit vacates the willfulness finding and the award of enhanced damages, and remands. The district court failed to address the objective prong of willfulness as a separate legal test from the subjective component. On remand the trial court is to reconsider its denial of JMOL of no willfulness. If the trial court grants the JMOL, it should then reconsider its decisions on enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. |
| 10/16/13 | Willfulness Finding, Enhancement, and Attorney Fees Reinstated. | Bard I – District Court | The court finds that Gore is not entitled to JMOL of no willfulness. Defendant had notice of the patent, and did not have a reasonable basis for believing in the noninfringement of the patent. The court reinstates enhanced damages and attorney fees. |
| 1/13/15 | Willfulness Finding Affirmed | Bard I – Federal Circuit | The Federal Circuit affirms the finding of willfulness. Given the circumstances, defendant’s inventorship argument was not objectively reasonable. |
| 11/11/15 | Summary Judgment of Laches Denied | Gore I – District Court | The magistrate judge recommends denying Bard’s motion for summary judgment of laches. Factual disputes exist as to whether Gore’s delay in filing suit was reasonable. |
| 11/16/15 | Summary Judgment Of No Willfulness Denied | Gore I – District Court | The magistrate judge recommends denying Bard’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness. According to the judge, it would be most prudent and appropriate to wait until the record is more developed at trial before coming to a conclusion as to the objective reasonableness of Bard’s defenses. |
| 12/2/15 | Summary Judgment Of No Willfulness Granted | Gore I – District Court | The district court grants Bard’s summary judgment of no willfulness, rejecting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny the motion. Defendant’s non-infringement arguments regarding a specific claim limitation are objectively reasonable. And at least some of Defendant’s invalidity arguments are also objectively reasonable. |
| 7/18/16 | Summary Judgment Of No Willfulness Vacated | Gore I – District Court | The district court vacates its earlier grant of summary judgment of no willfulness in light of Halo v. Pulse’s rejection of the Seagate objective reasonableness prong. The court then denies the motion for summary judgment of no willfulness. |
| 7/27/16 | Summary Judgment of Laches Denied | Gore I – District Court | The district court denies Bard’s motion for summary judgment of laches, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations. |
| 7/27/16 | Summary Judgment of No Lost Profits Granted | Gore I – District Court | The district court grants Bard’s summary judgment of no lost profits. Gore cannot recover lost profits before the assignment date because Gore was merely a non-exclusive licensee at the time, and the patent holder (assignor) did not practice the invention. |
| 3/8/17 | Jury Verdict | Gore I – District Court | The jury returns a verdict finding that Bard does not infringe the asserted patent, and that the asserted patent is invalid. |
| 9/25/17 | Stipulated Dismissal of Claims | Gore I – District Court | The parties stipulate to dismiss the claims with prejudice. |
The active component, after blending in the cheap viagra order blood, creates all favorable conditions, improve sexual stamina, amp up the confidence of a user that he is taking a viable medicine. The very important and main reason why this occurs is stress. buy cialis from canada amerikabulteni.com Risks associated with MRgFUS Although there are some side effects reported, they do not appear to viagra without rx be very promising for many reasons. Instead, ED solutions can be as easy as taking a pill cheap discount levitra but has more efficient results.