`Wallace.Wu@APORTER.COM
`+1 213.243.4104
`+1 213.243.4199 Fax
`777 South Figueroa Street
`Forty-Fourth Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`
`September 30, 2016
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Brian Horne
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`10100 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 1600
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`Re:
`
`Boston Scientific Corp. et. al. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Case
`No. 8:16-CV-0073-CJC-GJS (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Dear Brian:
`
`I write in response to your letters of September 8 and 13, 2016 regarding Boston
`Scientific’s products and/or Boston Scientific’s interrogatory responses.
`
`Boston Scientific’s Products
`
`Edwards seeks two samples of over 30 Boston Scientific’s products. For the Star
`Crimper product, Edwards has already inspected it.
`
`However, Edwards has not established a sufficient basis to justify its request for
`samples of the remaining products. The simple fact that Boston Scientific sells (or uses)
`or has sold (or used) these products does not make these products relevant to this action.
`Indeed, courts have denied discovery of the patentee’s products because they are “not
`relevant to any party’s claim or defense pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)” and “are not
`considered in a patent infringement analysis.” See, e.g., V. Mane Fils S.A. v. Intl. Flavors
`& Fragrances Inc., 06-2304 FLW, 2008 WL 4606313, at *4 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2008).
`Further, while its investigation is on-going, Boston Scientific does not currently have
`reason to believe that any of the specific products identified by Edwards are covered by
`any asserted claim of the patents-in-suit. To the extent that Edwards continues to believe
`that these products are somehow relevant in this action, please set forth a particularized
`explanation, on a product-by-product basis, for their relevance here and identify the legal
`authority in support of its positions.
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`Edwards Lifesciences v. Boston Scientific Scimed
`U.S. Patent No. 6,915,560
`IPR2017-00072 EX. 2012
`
`
`
`Brian Horne
`September 30, 2016
`Page 2
`
`Boston Scientific’s August 4, 2016 Interrogatory Responses
`
`For the reasons set forth below, Boston Scientific disagrees with your
`characterization of its August 4, 2016 interrogatory responses as inadequate, deficient, or
`incomplete.
`
`Edwards’s Interrogatory No. 1
`
`Subject to its general and specific objections, Boston Scientific has identified the
`factual basis in asserting infringement of the patents-in-suit. While Edwards may
`disagree with Boston Scientific’s infringement allegations, an interrogatory is not a
`mechanism to resolve the parties’ disputes on the merits.
`
`Discovery in this action is on-going. As indicated in my letter of September 13,
`Boston Scientific will amend its response following meaningful production of documents
`and samples by Edwards and supplementation of Edwards’s interrogatory responses.
`Your demand, however, that Boston Scientific amend its discovery responses “within 30
`days of Edwards providing samples of the accused products” is unjustified.
`
`Edwards’s Interrogatory No. 8
`
`Boston Scientific disagrees that its response to Interrogatory No. 8 is deficient.
`Boston Scientific is currently investigating whether its products fall within the scope of
`patents-in-suit and will supplement its response following that investigation.
`
`Edwards’s Interrogatory No. 9
`
`Boston Scientific disagrees that its response to Interrogatory No. 9 is deficient.
`As your letter acknowledges, discovery is in its early stages. In particular, expert
`discovery has yet to commence. Boston Scientific will supplement its response as
`discovery progresses.
`
`Edwards’s Interrogatory No. 10
`
`Boston Scientific disagrees that its response to Interrogatory No. 10 is deficient.
`Boston Scientific is currently investigating information responsive to this interrogatory
`and will supplement its response following that investigation.
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Brian Horne
`September 30, 2016
`Page 3
`
`Edwards’s Interrogatory No. 11
`
`Boston Scientific disagrees that its response to Interrogatory No. 11 is incomplete.
`Boston Scientific is currently investigating information responsive to this interrogatory
`and will supplement its response following that investigation.
`
`Edwards’s Interrogatory No. 12
`
`Boston Scientific will supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 12 to set forth
`that the Star Crimper was not sold commercially.
`
`Finally, with respect to the chart for the ‘560 patent (Ex. E), the “movable dies”
`label in [1a] was inadvertently misplaced. Please refer to the label indicating the
`“movable dies” in [1c] and throughout the remainder of the chart (see, e.g., [10a], [10f],
`[18a], [37a], [40a], [40c], and [40d]).
`
`In the event that Edwards believes a conference of counsel is necessary regarding
`the above issues, Boston Scientific is available next week.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ Wallace Wu
`Wallace Wu
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
