descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

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

Citation: 346 F. App'x 580Docket: Nos. 2009-1345, 2009-1359

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; August 17, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a patent infringement dispute between Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. and C.R. Bard Inc. (collectively, Bard) and W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (Gore). Bard previously secured a jury verdict against Gore, leading to compensatory damages and a judgment. Subsequent to the verdict, the district court issued an order on March 31, 2009, granting Bard prejudgment interest and supplemental damages, while denying a permanent injunction but allowing a compulsory license for Gore's future infringements. Gore sought to appeal this order, arguing that it constituted a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2). Bard moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that the appeal was premature due to the ongoing determination of the license terms. The Federal Circuit concurred with Bard, ruling that the unresolved nature of the license agreement proceedings rendered the judgment non-final and the appeal premature. Consequently, the court granted Bard's motion to dismiss Gore's appeal and instructed each party to bear its own costs. Additionally, Bard was directed to proceed with its brief in a related appeal within 30 days, with a revised official caption provided.

Legal Issues Addressed

Finality of Judgment for Appeal Purposes

Application: The court determined that the judgment was not final due to the unresolved terms of the compulsory license, thus rendering the appeal premature.

Reasoning: The Federal Circuit found that the ongoing license proceedings rendered the appeal premature and thus granted Bard's motion to dismiss the appeal.

Jurisdiction Over Appeals Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2)

Application: The court applied this statute to determine that the ongoing proceedings related to the license agreement rendered Gore's appeal premature.

Reasoning: Gore argued that its appeal was permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2), asserting that the judgment was final and that the license proceedings fell under the 'accounting' exception of the statute.