Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. WL Gore

17BARD PERIPHERAL v. WL GOREand that it was Mendenhall who first contacted himregarding the use of ePTFE in medicine. J.A. 9409,31564. Finally, Cooper himself wrote letters to anotherdoctor stating that “[a]ny success at this point in time isthe direct result of the AHI [i.e., Goldfarb’s,] efforts,” andthat the “AHI has, in a well-organized, productive fashion,described, with a fair degree of accuracy, the specificstructure necessary for a viable vascular graft.” 6 J.A.29587, 35493.Thus, although Gore attempts to recast its argumentfrom inurement in the Interference to joint inventorshipin the present case, Gore’s argument remains unchangedand there is still no evidence that Cooper either recognizedor appreciated the critical nature of the internodaldistance and communicated that key requirement toGoldfarb before Goldfarb reduced the invention to practice.Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the jury’sfinding that the ’135 patent is not invalid for improperinventorship, and the district court did not err in denyingGore’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on theissue.It is apparent that the dissent reaches its oppositeconclusion by ignoring the applicable standard of reviewand giving insufficient weight to the jury’s verdict. Byciting only to the limited facts that support Gore’s caseand relying on a mistaken understanding of the inventionat issue, the dissent fails to “disregard all evidence favorableto the moving party that the jury is not required tobelieve” and intentionally, but impermissibly, “substitute[s]its view of the evidence for that of the jury.”6 We note that despite this substantial evidence,the dissent insists that Goldfarb “did not invent theeffective graft materials.” Dissent at 16.