Court Opinion

ID: 867676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-05-13 15:42:45.648448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:33.131526
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

              CORDIS CORPORATION,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant,

                            v.

    BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND
      BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
             Defendants-Appellees.
            ______________________

                       2012-1647
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 10-CV-0039, Judge Sue L.
Robinson.
                ______________________

                 Decided: May 13, 2013
                 ______________________

    CONSTANTINE L. TRELA, JR., Sidley Austin, LLP, of
Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him
on the brief were DAVID T. PRITIKIN, WILLIAM H.
BAUMGARTNER, JR., and ANTHONY BALKISSOON. Of coun-
sel was LINDA R. FRIEDLIEB.

    MATTHEW M. WOLF, Arnold & Porter LLP, of Wash-
ington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on
2                   CORDIS CORP.   v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP.

the brief were EDWARD HAN, JOHN E. NILSSON and SETH I.
HELLER.
                 ______________________

Before O'MALLEY, SCHALL, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
    We affirm the judgment of the district court without
opinion. We vacate, however, the portion of the district
court’s decision “nullifying” (invalidating) dependent
claims 14–16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,547,817. See Cordis
Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 868 F. Supp. 2d 342, 356-
57 (D. Del. 2012).
    AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART