By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. v. Cordis Corporation, Civil Action No. 10-315-SLR (D.Del., March 13, 2012), the Court denied the motion of defendant Cordis Corporation requesting the Court to disturb the jury verdict and grant Cordis’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. In support of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, Cordis alleged that the jury’s verdict – which the parties agreed included an award to Boston Scientific of lost profits based on the normal profit margin per unit of sales of the product that allegedly declined in sales because of the infringing products – was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 7. Cordis also alleged that Boston Scientific had not proven that the introduction of the products found to infringe the patent at issue was the “but-for cause” of the decline of sales of the Cordis product. Id.
Upon evaluation of the evidence presented during trial, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of lost profits in the case and denied Cordis’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 25. A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.