Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. WL Gore

15BARD PERIPHERAL v. WL GOREthat each individual tube’s microstructure varied alongthe length of the tube. J.A. 9370–72, 76. Goldfarb personallyselected the most promising sections for implantation.[Id]. Goldfarb also testified that after an initial setof implantations, he gave a Gore employee specificationsof what might make a more successful graft, includingspecific internodal distances. J.A. 9398–99. Therefore,the jury could have reasonably determined that “physicallyconveying” the undifferentiated tubes to Goldfarbwas an insignificant contribution to the conception of theimportance of internodal distance when weighed againstGoldfarb’s personal selections and directions.As further evidence of the insignificance of Cooper’scontribution, Cooper previously testified in the Interferencethat he did not provide Goldfarb information aboutthe GORE-TEX structure “in any great detail” when theymet. J.A. 23112. He also testified that he later resortedto taking Goldfarb’s slides to learn what variables in thegrafts were important in producing good results. J.A.36993–94. Also in the Interference, former Gore employeeRichard Mendenhall testified that “there was no discussionof substance” at a meeting with Cooper and Goldfarb,and that it was Goldfarb who explained to Cooper “thecharacteristics that were ideal for the synthetic artery,”not the other way around. J.A. 22648, 22642. Finally, inthe present case, Goldfarb testified that, with the exceptionof a statistician’s suggestion to randomize the placementof certain grafts, no one from Gore gave him anyinstruction regarding how to set up his experiments,including what types of grafts to use, what characteristicsto look for, and what range of variables would produce asuccessful graft. J.A. 31638–40. Notably, Gore employeeDan Detton’s previous deposition testimony was read intothe record stating that Cooper never made grafts, neverextruded tubing that was used to make grafts, and did not