Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

testimonypatent
appealverdictpatentappellantappellee

Related Cases

Beachcombers v. WildeWood Creative Products, Inc., 31 F.3d 1154, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1653
View Case »
Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1712
View Case »
One-E-Way, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 859 F.3d 1059, 123 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090
View Case »
Dean v. Mason, 61 U.S. 198, 20 How. 198, 1857 WL 8579, 15 L.Ed. 876
View Case »
MacMillan v. Moffett, 58 C.C.P.A. 792, 432 F.2d 1237, 167 U.S.P.Q. 550
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Medtronic Inc. v. Intermedics, Inc., 799 F.2d 734, 230 U.S.P.Q. 641

Facts

This case involves a patent infringement dispute between Medtronic, Inc. and Intermedics, Inc. regarding endocardial leads for pacemakers. Medtronic's patent was upheld, while Intermedics' patent was ruled invalid. The jury found that Medtronic's invention was not obvious and was infringed by Intermedics, while Intermedics' invention was deemed obvious and not infringed by Medtronic. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

This case, coming from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, concerns two separate patents, one owned by appellee Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Medtronic Puerto Rico, Inc. (collectively called Medtronic), and the other by appellant Intermedics, Inc. (Intermedics).

Issue

Whether the patents in question were valid and whether there was infringement.

Whether the patents in question were valid and whether there was infringement.

Rule

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented regarding the obviousness of both patents. It found that the jury's determination that Medtronic's patent was not obvious was supported by substantial evidence, including the unique features of the soft pliant tines. Conversely, the jury found that Intermedics' patent was obvious based on prior art, which was also supported by substantial evidence.

In reviewing a district court's refusal to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict, is the duty of the Court of Appeals to be satisfied that the law has been correctly applied to the facts found. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 59, 28 U.S.C.A.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Medtronic's patent and ruling Intermedics' patent invalid for obviousness.

Affirmed.

Who won?

Medtronic, Inc. prevailed in this case as the court upheld its patent for endocardial leads, finding it not invalid for obviousness and that it was infringed by Intermedics. The jury's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including expert testimony and the unique characteristics of Medtronic's invention that addressed prior art deficiencies.

Medtronic's patent was upheld and Intermedics' was ruled invalid. Intermedics is the only appellant. Medtronic's patent (which was upheld and found infringed) is U.S. Patent No. 3,902,501 (the C/D patent).

You must be