St. Jude Medical, Inc. et al v. Access Closure, Inc.
JUDGMENT on claims for patent infringement. Issues remain for an accounting, and the Court will receive any motions for such awards in connection with the accounting after ACI's anticipated interlocutory appeal. Signed by Honorable Harry F. Barnes on January 23, 2012. (cap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. and
ST. JUDE MEDICAL PUERTO RICO, LLC
CASE NO. 08-CV-4101
ACCESS CLOSURE, INC.
This matter came on for jury trial in this Court, the Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States
District Judge, presiding, on December 13, 2010. On December 21, 2010, the jury finished
deliberating and returned a completed Verdict Form. (ECF No. 265). On November 8, 2011, this
Court entered Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law (ECF No. 307) regarding Defendant's
double-patenting defense, following a one-day bench trial on June 22, 2011. A full and complete
accounting has not yet been made.
Having reviewed and considered the jury's Verdict Form, the trial record, and the Court's
own Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law, as well as all pleadings, papers, and other matters
that have come before the Court in connection with this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
That judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff St. Jude Medical Puerto Rico, LLC
("SJMPR") and against Defendant Access Closure, Inc. ("ACI") on SJMPR's claims for infringement
of claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 5,275,616 (the "'616 Patent") and claim 21 of U.S. Patent No.
5,716,375 (the "'375 Patent").
That judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs St. Jude Medical, Inc. ("SJM") and
SJMPR, and against ACI, on St. Jude's claims for infringement of claims 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No.
7,008,439 (the "'439 Patent").
That ACI's infringement has been willful.
That judgment is entered in favor of ACI and against SJMPR on SJMPR's claims for
infringement of claims 38, 40, and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 5,601,602 (the "'602 Patent").
That judgment is entered in favor of ACI and against SJM and SJMPR on St. Jude's
claim for infringement of claim 9 of the '439 Patent.
That judgment is entered in favor of SJMPR, and against ACI, on ACI's
counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and unenforceability with respect to the '616
Patent, the '375 Patent, and the '602 Patent.
That judgment is entered in favor of SJM and SJMPR, and against ACI, on ACI's
counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and unenforceability with respect to the '439
Although a full and complete accounting has not yet been made, that SJMPR shall
recover from ACI the sum of twenty seven million one hundred thousand dollars ($27,100,000.00)
in compensatory damages for infringement of claim 14 of the '616 Patent and claim 21 of the '375
Compensatory damages for ACI's infringement of the '439 Patent have not yet been
determined. In addition to such damages for the '439 Patent, SJM and SJMPR are also seeking
supplemental damages for infringement of the '439 Patent, the '616 Patent and the '375 Patent;
pre-judgment interest; costs; enhanced damages based on ACI's willful infringement; attorney fees
on the ground that this case is exceptional; post-judgment interest, and such other further relief as
the Court may deem appropriate. All of these issues remain for an accounting, and the Court will
receive any motions for such awards in connection with the accounting after ACI's anticipated
The Court retains jurisdiction to, inter alia, determine all post-trial motions, including
St. Jude Medical's anticipated motion for a permanent injunction and any motions for judgment as
a matter of law, conduct an accounting, and enforce any and all aspects of this Judgment and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2012.
/s/ Harry F. Barnes
Hon. Harry F. Barnes
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?