Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 682 F.3d 1003
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided April 13, 2012·No. 2010-1510·Published

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

April 13, 2012

ERRATA ______________________

Appeal No. 2010-1510

BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC. AND DAVID GOLDFARB, M.D., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, and C.R. BARD, INC., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant. Decided: February 10, 2012 Precedential Opinion ______________________

Please make the following change:

Page 34, line 10, delete the following sentences:

“With the same law firm representing Gore both before and after the ’135 patent was issued, the district court viewed the objectivity of the opinion as questionable. Id. at 10.”

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

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.