Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., No. 07-1296

By FindLaw Staff on August 19, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a patent infringement case involving implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), district court's judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) summary judgment of invalidity for defendant is reversed as invalidity was not at issue on remand because the mandate rule, and reinstatement of the jury's validity verdict precluded defendant's anticipation defense on remand; 2) jury's verdict that the patent was not unenforceable for uninequitable conduct is reinstated, and a grant of a  new trial on that issue is reversed; 3) district court's ruling on damages is remanded for redetermination, limited to instances in which the patented method has actually been performed; and 4) the en banc circuit court reverses a determination that section 271(f) applies to method claims and hence permits damages in this case on devices exported where the claimed method is carried out in countries other than the United States. 

Read Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., No. 07-1296


Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
Decided August 19, 2009

Before Newman, Mayer, and Louries, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Lourie, CIrcuit Judge.   

For Plaintiff:  Arthur I. Neustadt, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., of Alexandria Virgina.    

For Defendant:  Mark A. Perry, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP., of Washington, DC. 

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard