No. 24-1143
Atrium Medical Corporation v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
Response Waived
Experienced Counsel
Tags: circuit-split contract-law judicial-interpretation patent-expiration patent-licensing royalty-agreement
Latest Conference:
2025-05-29
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Ninth Circuit's approach fails to properly determine what royalties are "for," as Brulotte and Kimble require.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Ninth Circuit's approach fails to properly determine what royalties are 'for,' as Brulotte and Kimble require
Docket Entries
2025-06-02
Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2025-05-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/29/2025.
2025-05-08
Waiver of C.R. Bard, Inc. of right to respond submitted.
2025-05-08
Waiver of right of respondent C.R. Bard, Inc. to respond filed.
2025-05-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 6, 2025)
2025-02-28
Application (24A829) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until May 5, 2025.
2025-02-24
Application (24A829) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 6, 2025 to May 5, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
Atrium Medical Corporation
Jeffrey Alan Lamken — MoloLamken LLP, Petitioner
C.R. Bard, Inc.
Deanne Elizabeth Maynard — Morrison & Foerster LLP, Respondent