Did you mean: Baillie et al v. Boston Scientific Corp?
Web Results

MDL Listing - Southern District of West Virginia

www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/mdl2326/caseviewlist.aspx

2:12-cv-00373, 02/09/2012, Minnie V. Mann, Boston Scientific Corporation ..... 11/ 20/2012: Boston Scientific, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, et al) (TERMINATED ...

Boston Scientific Slammed With $18.5M Verdict In Mesh Trial ...

www.law360.com/articles/597884/boston-scientific-slammed-with-18-5m-verdict-in-mesh-trial

Nov 20, 2014 ... A West Virginia federal jury on Thursday hit Boston Scientific Corp. with an $18.5 million verdict ... The case is Canterbury v. ... Campbell et al v.

Jury Awards $26.7 Million To 4 Women In Boston Scientific Pelvic ...

www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/litigation/b/litigation-blog/archive/2014/11/14/jury-awards-26-7-million-to-4-women-in-boston-scientific-pelvic-mesh-mdl-trial.aspx

Nov 14, 2014 ... s Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit pelvic mesh repair device (Amal Eghnayem, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 14-24061, S.D. Fla.).

Sanchez et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 2:2012cv05762 ...

law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/west-virginia/wvsdce/2:2012cv05762/92876/55/

Sanchez et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 2:2012cv05762 - Document 55 (S.D.W. Va. 2014) case opinion from the Southern District of West Virginia ...

More Info

Video of Orozco, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp - Trial - 05/09/16 to ...

cvn.com

May 9, 2016 ... Opening statements begin Monday in a Massachusetts state courtroom in a potentially $6 million product liability lawsuit against Boston ...

Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. | Oyez

www.oyez.org

Nov 5, 2013 ... Medtronic, Inc. v. ... Boston Scientific Corp. et al. ... Mirowski Family Ventures ( MFV) held both patents and licensed them to Guidant Corp.

IN RE BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM ...

www.leagle.com

Mar 8, 2016 ... Pending before the court is Boston Scientific Corp. ... PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Hockett, et al. v.