MarcTec objects to Cordis' $5M award
MarcTec claimed it was not guilty of alleged litigation misconduct, arguing against a nearly $5 million award granted to Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary Cordis for attorney and expert witness fees.
The Effingham, Ill.-based medical device maker argued July 8 that its case did not meet the benchmarks for awarding lawyer and expert witness fees—claiming neither litigation misconduct nor bad faith and objective baselessness—in the latest installment of a nearly four-year-old dispute originally brought against Cordis for what MarcTec alleged were infringements of its patented stent technology.
“In this case, there was no such conduct,” argued MarcTec attorney Garret A. Leach. Citing case law in which attorney’s fees were awarded in patent disputes, Leach argued that the case “is in a different universe, when it comes to the alleged egregiousness of the conduct.”
Cordis countered that there was litigation misconduct and the case was objectively baseless and pursued in bad faith.
“This case became extraordinarily expensive, because MarcTec just wouldn’t let go,” Cordis’ attorney Charles D. Hoffmann argued. “The most revolting feature of this... was having litigants come forward with evidence that just didn’t pass the smell test… It was an attempt to defile the temple of justice with disgusting evidence.”
A federal judge ruled in September 2009 that Cordis had not infringed upon two of MarcTec’s stent patents, and a subsequent appeal was upheld in August 2010. The ruling in favor of Cordis was granted based upon a finding that “heat bonding,” a key aspect of MarcTec’s patents, was not used to make Cordis' Cypher stents. Cordis’ motion for attorney and expert witness fees was awarded in February 2010.
The Effingham, Ill.-based medical device maker argued July 8 that its case did not meet the benchmarks for awarding lawyer and expert witness fees—claiming neither litigation misconduct nor bad faith and objective baselessness—in the latest installment of a nearly four-year-old dispute originally brought against Cordis for what MarcTec alleged were infringements of its patented stent technology.
“In this case, there was no such conduct,” argued MarcTec attorney Garret A. Leach. Citing case law in which attorney’s fees were awarded in patent disputes, Leach argued that the case “is in a different universe, when it comes to the alleged egregiousness of the conduct.”
Cordis countered that there was litigation misconduct and the case was objectively baseless and pursued in bad faith.
“This case became extraordinarily expensive, because MarcTec just wouldn’t let go,” Cordis’ attorney Charles D. Hoffmann argued. “The most revolting feature of this... was having litigants come forward with evidence that just didn’t pass the smell test… It was an attempt to defile the temple of justice with disgusting evidence.”
A federal judge ruled in September 2009 that Cordis had not infringed upon two of MarcTec’s stent patents, and a subsequent appeal was upheld in August 2010. The ruling in favor of Cordis was granted based upon a finding that “heat bonding,” a key aspect of MarcTec’s patents, was not used to make Cordis' Cypher stents. Cordis’ motion for attorney and expert witness fees was awarded in February 2010.