Atrium, a unit of Swedish medtech company Getinge AB, argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision contradicted the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brulotte v. Thys, which prohibits intellectual property owners from collecting royalties after their patent expires. Atrium claimed that the Ninth Circuit had misinterpreted Brulotte, advancing an unprecedented interpretation.
In response, Bard contended that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling was consistent with Supreme Court precedent and that the decision was well-reasoned and should stand.
The patent involved in the case is U.S. Patent No. 6,435,135.
The Ninth Circuit panel was composed of U.S. Circuit Judges Michelle T. Friedland, Salvador Mendoza Jr., and Roopali H. Desai.
Bard is represented by Brian R. Matsui, Deanne E. Maynard, Seth W. Lloyd, and Diana L. Kim of Morrison & Foerster LLP, Steven C. Cherny and Matthew A. Traupman of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, and Andrew Federhar and Jessica Gale of Spencer Fane LLP. Atrium is represented by Paul Tanck, Christopher L. McArdle, Wade G. Perrin, and Charles W. Cox II of Alston & Bird LLP, and Jeffrey A. Lamken of MoloLamken LLP.
