Arthrocare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

Federal Circuit

Arthrocare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

102 F. App'x 729

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 2004

DocketNos. 04-1323, 04-1352

StatusPublished

This text of 102 F. App'x 729 (Arthrocare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthrocare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 102 F. App'x 729 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

RADER, Circuit Judge.

The court considers whether ArthroCare’s cross-appeal, 04-1352, should be dismissed.

ArthroCare sued Smith & Nephew for infringement of three patents relating to electrosurgical devices and methods in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Arthrocare Corporation v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 01-504-SLR. The jury returned a verdict of infringement and rejected Smith & Nephew’s assertions of invalidity. Subsequently, the district court granted ArthroCare’s motion for entry of a permanent injunction. Smith & Nephew appealed. ArthroCare filed a “conditional cross appeal” from the district court’s ruling “precluding ArthroCare from offering evidence on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the Court’s refusal to instruct the jury on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and any and all orders rulings, and judgments underlying these decisions.”

An “appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal, urge in support of a decree any matter appearing in the record, although his argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of the lower court or an insistence upon matter overlooked or ignored by it.” United States v. American Ry. Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435, 44 S.Ct. 560, 68 L.Ed. 1087 (1924); see also Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 879 F.2d 820, 822 n. 1 (Fed.Cir.1989) (“Appellees always have the right to assert alternative grounds for affirming the judgment that are supported by the record.”). ArthroCare prevailed in district court. ArthroCare may, as an appellee, challenge any unfavorable aspects of the district court’s rulings. However, It is not proper for ArthroCare to proceed as a cross-appellant.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) ArthroCare’s cross-appeal, 04-1352, is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs for 04-1352.

[730]*730(3) The revised official caption in 04-1323 is reflected above.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

RADER, Circuit Judge.

The court considers whether ArthroCare’s cross-appeal, 04-1352, should be dismissed.

ArthroCare sued Smith & Nephew for infringement of three patents relating to electrosurgical devices and methods in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Arthrocare Corporation v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 01-504-SLR. The jury returned a verdict of infringement and rejected Smith & Nephew’s assertions of invalidity. Subsequently, the district court granted ArthroCare’s motion for entry of a permanent injunction. Smith & Nephew appealed. ArthroCare filed a “conditional cross appeal” from the district court’s ruling “precluding ArthroCare from offering evidence on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the Court’s refusal to instruct the jury on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and any and all orders rulings, and judgments underlying these decisions.”

An “appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal, urge in support of a decree any matter appearing in the record, although his argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of the lower court or an insistence upon matter overlooked or ignored by it.” United States v. American Ry. Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435, 44 S.Ct. 560, 68 L.Ed. 1087 (1924); see also Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 879 F.2d 820, 822 n. 1 (Fed.Cir.1989) (“Appellees always have the right to assert alternative grounds for affirming the judgment that are supported by the record.”). ArthroCare prevailed in district court. ArthroCare may, as an appellee, challenge any unfavorable aspects of the district court’s rulings. However, It is not proper for ArthroCare to proceed as a cross-appellant.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) ArthroCare’s cross-appeal, 04-1352, is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs for 04-1352.

[730]*730(3) The revised official caption in 04-1323 is reflected above.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 F. App'x 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthrocare-corp-v-smith-nephew-inc-cafc-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack