Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. WL Gore

BARD PERIPHERAL v. WL GORE 8reduce the invention to practice. Id. at 1381–83. Therefore,this court found that “Cooper has not establishedthat he contemporaneously appreciated that the materialtested by Goldfarb met the fibril length limitation of theinterference count, and has not established that Goldfarb’sknowledge of the material’s fibril lengths inured tohis benefit.” Id. at 1381–82. Accordingly, this courtaffirmed the Board’s decision that “the relationshipbetween Cooper and Goldfarb was such that Goldfarb’swork did not inure to Cooper’s benefit” and priority ofinvention was awarded to Goldfarb. Id. at 1380.C.On March 28, 2003, Bard filed suit against Gore forinfringement of the ’135 patent. After a seventeen-daytrial, on December 11, 2007, a jury found the ’135 patentvalid and willfully infringed by Gore. Bard PeripheralVascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. (“VerdictForm”), No. 03-CV-0597 (D. Ariz. Dec. 11, 2007), ECF No.771. More specifically, the jury found that the ’135 patentwas not invalid for improper inventorship, anticipation,obviousness, or lack of written description. Id. at 16–19.The jury awarded Bard lost profits in the amount of$102,081,578.82 and reasonable royalties in the amountof $83,508,292.20, and set a reasonable royalty rate of10%. Id. at 22–23.In what it deemed “the most complicated case th[edistrict] court has presided over,” Bard Peripheral Vascular,Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. (“License”), No. 03-CV-0597, slip op. at 1 (D. Ariz. July 21, 2010), ECF No.1057, the court denied Gore’s motions for judgment as amatter of law on inventorship, anticipation, obviousness,written description, and willfulness. Bard PeripheralVascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. (“Post-Trial I”),586 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1099 (D. Ariz. 2008); Bard Periph-