Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CORDIS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________
2012-1647
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 10-CV-0039, Judge Sue L.
Robinson.
______________________
Decided: May 13, 2013
______________________
CONSTANTINE L. T RELA , J R., Sidley Austin, LLP, of
Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him
on the brief were D AVID T. P RITIKIN, WILLIAM H.
BAUMGARTNER , J R., and A NTHONY BALKISSOON. Of coun-
sel was L INDA R. F RIEDLIEB.
MATTHEW M. WOLF , Arnold & Porter LLP, of Wash-
ington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on

-- 1 of 2 --

CORDIS CORP. v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. 2
the brief were EDWARD HAN, J OHN E. N ILSSON and SETH I.
HELLER .
______________________
Before O'MALLEY , SCHALL , and WALLACH , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
We affirm the judgment of the district court without
opinion. We vacate, however, the portion of the district
court’s decision “nullifying” (invalidating) dependent
claims 14–16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,547,817. See Cordis
Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 868 F. Supp. 2d 342, 356-
57 (D. Del. 2012).
AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART

-- 2 of 2 --