CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 20 Filed 09/01/17 Page 1 of 10
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL NO. 17-CV-1969 (PJS/TNL)
`
`
`PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
`ORDER
`(PATENT)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`DEFENDANT.
`
`
`
`
`QXMEDICAL, LLC,
`
`
`
`V.
`
`VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, INC. ,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this
`Court, and in order to secure the just, speedy, and less expensive determination of this action, the
`following schedule shall govern these proceedings. This schedule may be modified only upon
`formal motion and a showing of good cause as required by D. Minn. LR 16.3.
`
`1. Discovery & Pleading of Additional Claims & Defenses
`
`
`a. Discovery is permitted with respect to claims of willful infringement and defenses
`of patent invalidity or unenforceability not pleaded by a party, where the evidence
`needed to support these claims or defenses is in whole or in part in the hands of
`another party.
`
`b. Once a party has given the necessary discovery, the opposing party may seek
`leave of Court to add claims or defenses for which it alleges, consistent with Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 11, that it has support, and such support shall be explained in the
`motion seeking leave.
`
`
`
`
`2. Fact Discovery
`
`
`c. Leave shall be liberally given where prima facie support is present, provided that
`the party seeks leave as soon as reasonably possible following the opposing party
`providing the necessary discovery.
`
`a. All pre-discovery disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be
`completed on or before August 25, 2017.
`
`b. Fact discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed on or before June 29,
`2018.
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1890 - Page 1
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 20 Filed 09/01/17 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c. No more than 25 Interrogatories, counted in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
`P. 33(a), shall be served by any party.
`
`d. No more than 75 Document Requests shall be served by any party.
`
`e. No more than 100 Requests for Admissions shall be served by any party.
`
`f. No more than eight depositions, excluding expert witness depositions, shall be
`taken by either party.
`
`g. On or before September 15, 2017, the parties shall jointly CM/ECF file a
`proposed stipulated Protective Order for the Court’s review. The sealing of entire
`pleadings, memoranda of law, exhibits, and the like is strongly discouraged. No
`document shall be filed under seal unless such document or information therein is
`genuinely confidential and/or there are compelling reasons to do so. Any party
`seeking to file a document under seal shall specifically review each document and
`the information therein to limit sealing only to the extent necessary. If a party
`files a document containing confidential information with the Court, it shall do so
`in compliance with the Electronic Case Filing Procedures for the District of
`Minnesota and Local Rule 5.6. Any joint motion made pursuant to Local Rule
`5.6 before United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung shall conform to
`Exhibit A attached hereto. Counsel shall provide the Court with two courtesy
`copies of the unredacted documents with the redacted information highlighted in
`yellow.
`
`h. Any party claiming privilege or protection of trial-preparation materials shall
`serve on the party seeking discovery a privilege log that complies with the
`requirements in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).
`
`
`3. ESI Discovery Plan
`
`
`On or prior to October 1, 2017, the parties shall jointly CM/ECF file a stipulated
`ESI discovery plan. The parties shall meet and confer prior to said date. The
`parties shall preserve all electronic documents that bear on any claims, defenses,
`or the subject matter of the lawsuit.
`
`4. Expert Discovery
`
`a. The plaintiff may call up to 1-2 experts in the fields of: Cardiac catherization.
`
`b. The defendant may call up to 2-3 experts in the fields of: Infringement of VSI’s
`patents; responses to any allegations of invalidity made by plaintiff; cardiac
`catherization procedures; and damage issues.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1890 - Page 2
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 20 Filed 09/01/17 Page 3 of 10
`
`c. On or before 15 days after the Court issues the claim construction order, the
`parties shall identify to the opposing party the experts who will provide a report
`that deals with the issues on which that party has the burden of persuasion. If the
`Court states that it will not issue a claim construction order, the parties must
`identify experts who will provide a report concerning the issues on which that
`party has the burden of persuasion by the close of fact discovery.
`
`d. On or before 30 days after the Court issues the claim construction order, the
`parties shall exchange initial expert reports, which reports shall be in accordance
`with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) (“Initial Expert Reports”). The Initial Expert
`Reports from each party shall deal with the issues on which that party has the
`burden of persuasion. If the Court states that it will not issue a claim construction
`order, the parties must exchange their initial expert reports no later than 30 days
`after the close of fact discovery.
`
`e. On or before 30 days after the initial expert reports are exchanged, Rebuttal
`Expert Reports shall be exchanged. Rebuttal Expert Reports shall also be in
`accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
`
`f. Matters relating to drafts of expert reports and the preparation of expert witnesses
`shall be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4).
`
`g. All expert discovery shall be completed by October 5, 2018. The parties shall
`have a maximum of one expert deposition for each expert.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5. Discovery Relating to Claim Construction Hearing
`
`a. Any party alleging infringement shall serve its Claim Chart to the party defending
`against infringement by September 1, 2017. The title of the Claim Chart shall
`identify the party serving it.
`
`
`i. This Claim Chart shall identify: (1) which claim(s) of its patent(s) it
`alleges are being infringed; (2) which specific products or methods of
`defending party it alleges literally infringe each claim; and (3) where each
`element of each claim listed in (1) is found in each product or method
`listed in (2), including the basis for each contention that the element is
`present.
`
`ii. If there is a contention that there is infringement of any claims under the
`doctrine of equivalents, the party alleging infringement shall separately
`indicate this on its Claim Chart and, in addition to the information
`required for literal infringement, that party shall also explain each
`function, way, and result that it contends are equivalent, and why it
`contends that any differences are not substantial.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1890 - Page 3
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 20 Filed 09/01/17 Page 4 of 10
`
`b. Any party defending against infringement shall serve its Responsive Claim Chart
`to the party alleging infringement by October 30, 2017. The title of the
`Responsive Claim Chart shall identify the party serving it.
`
`
`i. The Responsive Claim Chart shall indicate with specificity the elements,
`on the Claim Chart of the party alleging infringement, which it admits are
`present in its accused device or process, and which it contends are absent.
`In the latter regard, the party defending against infringement will set forth
`in detail the basis for its contention that the element is absent.
`
`ii. As to the doctrine of equivalents, the party defending against infringement
`shall indicate on its chart its contentions concerning any differences in
`function, way, and result, and why any differences are substantial.
`
`c. A party may amend its Claim Chart only by leave of the Court for good cause
`shown.
`
`d. On or before December 8, 2017, the parties shall simultaneously exchange a list
`of claim terms, phrases, or clauses that each party contends should be construed
`by the Court.
`
`e. On or before December 15, 2017, the parties shall meet and confer for the purpose
`of finalizing a list of claim terms, phrases or clauses, narrowing or resolving
`differences, and facilitating the ultimate preparation of a joint claim construction
`statement.
`
`i. During the meet and confer process, the parties shall exchange their
`preliminary proposed construction of each claim term, phrase or clause
`which the parties collectively have identified for claim construction
`purposes and shall make this exchange on or before December 15, 2017.
`
`ii. At the same time the parties exchange their respective “preliminary claim
`construction” they shall also provide a preliminary identification of
`extrinsic evidence, including without limitation, dictionary definitions,
`citations to learned treatises and prior art, and testimony of percipient and
`expert witnesses that they contend support their respective claim
`constructions. The parties shall identify each such items of extrinsic
`evidence by production number or produce a copy of any such item not
`previously produced. With respect to any such witness, percipient or
`expert, the parties shall also provide a brief description of the substance of
`that witness' proposed testimony.
`
`f. Following the parties’ meet and confer and no later than January 10, 2018, the
`parties shall notify the Court as to whether they request that the Court schedule a
`Claim Construction hearing to determine claim interpretation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1890 - Page 4
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 20 Filed 09/01/17 Page 5 of 10
`
`i. If any party believes there is no reason for a Claim Construction hearing,
`the party shall provide the reason to the Court.
`
`ii. At the same time, the parties shall also complete and file with the Court a
`joint claim construction statement that shall contain the following
`information:
`
`A. The construction of those claim terms, phrases, or clauses on
`which the parties agree;
`
`B. Each party’s proposed construction of each disputed claim term,
`phrase, or clause together with an identification of all references
`from the specification of prosecution history that support that
`construction, and an identification of any extrinsic evidence known
`to the party on which it intends to rely either in support of its
`proposed construction of the claim or to oppose any other party’s
`proposed construction of the claim, including, but not limited, as
`permitted by law, dictionary definitions, citation to learned
`treatises and prior art, and testimony of percipient and expert
`witnesses;
`
`C. Whether any party proposes to call one or more witnesses,
`including experts at the Claim Construction hearing, the identity of
`each such witness and for each expert, a summary of each opinion
`to be offered in sufficient detail to permit a meaningful deposition
`of that expert;
`
`D. Whether the parties believe that a technology tutorial would be
`helpful for the Court and, if so, the proposed timing and format of
`the tutorial; and
`
`E. An acknowledgement that the filed joint claim construction
`statement shall not be amended, modified, changed or the like
`without good cause shown.
`
`g. If the Court schedules a Claim Construction hearing, prior to the date of the Claim
`Construction hearing, the Court shall issue an Order discussing:
`
`
`
`i. Whether it will receive extrinsic evidence, and if so, the particular
`evidence it will receive;
`
`ii. Whether the extrinsic evidence in the form of testimony shall be the
`affidavits already filed, or in the form of live testimony from the affiants;
`and
`
`iii. A briefing schedule.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1890 - Page 5
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 20 Filed 09/01/17 Page 6 of 10
`
`6. Discovery Relating to Validity/Prior Art
`
`a. On or before October 30, 2017, or within 59 days of receiving the accusing parties
`claim chart, the party defending against infringement shall serve to the opposing
`party a Prior Art Statement listing of all of the prior art on which it relies, and a
`complete and detailed explanation of what it alleges the prior art shows and how
`that prior art invalidates the claim(s) asserted by the party alleging infringement,
`including: (i) which claim(s) alleged to be infringed are invalid; (ii) which prior
`art, if any, invalidates each claim; (iii) where in such prior art each element of the
`allegedly invalid claims may be found; and (iv) whether a basis for invalidity
`other than prior art is alleged, specifying what the basis is and whether such
`allegation is based upon 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112, or any other statutory
`provisions.
`
`b. On or before December 8, 2017, or within 38 days of receiving the party
`defending against
`infringements Prior Art Statement,
`the party alleging
`infringement shall serve its own Prior Art Statement, in which it will state in
`detail its position on what the prior art relied upon by the opposing party shows, if
`its interpretation differs, and its position on why the prior art does not invalidate
`the asserted patent claims.
`
`c. The Prior Art Statements can be, but need not be, in the form of expert reports. If
`a prior art statement is submitted in the form of expert reports, the deadlines in
`Section 6 govern and are not extended by any different expert discovery
`deadlines.
`
`d. A party can amend its Prior Art Statement only by leave of the Court for good
`cause shown.
`
`
`
`7. Other Discovery Issues
`
`A party may postpone the waiver of any applicable attorney-client privilege on
`topics relevant to claims of willful infringement, if any, until December 29, 2017,
`provided that all relevant privileged documents are produced no later than January
`19, 2018. All additional discovery regarding the waiver will take place after
`January 19, 2018 and shall be completed by March 16, 2018.
`
`8. Discovery Definitions
`
`
`a. In responding to discovery requests, each party shall construe broadly terms of art
`used in the patent field (e.g., “prior art,” “best mode,” “on sale”) and read them as
`requesting discovery relating to the issue as opposed to a particular definition of
`the term used.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1890 - Page 6
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 20 Filed 09/01/17 Page 7 of 10
`
`b. Compliance with this provision is not satisfied by the respondent including a
`specific definition of the term of art in its response, and limiting its response to
`that definition.
`
`9. Non-Dispositive Motions
`
`
`a. Non-dispositive motions may be scheduled for hearing by calling the Court’s
`Judicial Assistant, Holly McLelland, at 651-848-1870.
`
`b. All motions which seek to amend the pleadings, including without limitation, a
`motion for leave to amend to add parties must be served on or before December
`15, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`c. Except as to non-dispositive motion deadlines specifically set forth elsewhere in
`this Order, all non-dispositive motions and supporting documents, including those
`which relate to discovery, shall be served and filed on or before June 29, 2018.
`
`d. All non-dispositive motions and supporting documents which relate to expert
`discovery shall be filed and served on or before October 5, 2018.
`
`e. Prior to scheduling any non-dispositive motion, parties are strongly encouraged to
`consider whether the motion, including motions relating to discovery and
`scheduling, can be informally resolved through telephone conference with the
`Magistrate Judge. All non-dispositive motions shall be scheduled, filed and served
`in compliance with the Electronic Case Filing Procedures for the District of
`Minnesota and in compliance with D. Minn. LR 7.1 and 37.1, and shall be
`presented in a form that complies with D. Minn. LR 37.2.
`
`f. At the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court advised the parties that it is
`willing to resolve non-dispositive disputes between the parties on an informal
`basis via a telephone conference. However, before the Court will agree to proceed
`with this informal resolution mechanism, the "meet and confer" required by Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and D. Minn. LR 37.1 must have taken place, and all parties to
`the dispute must agree to use this informal resolution process as the very nature of
`the process is such that the parties are giving up rights they would otherwise have
`(e.g., the dispute is heard over the phone; there is no recording or transcript of the
`phone conversation; no briefs, declarations or sworn affidavits are filed). If the
`parties do agree to use this informal resolution process, one of the parties shall
`contact the Court’s Judicial Assistant, Holly McLelland, to schedule the
`conference. The parties shall submit short letters prior to the conference to set
`forth their respective positions. The requesting party shall submit its letter 7 days
`prior to the conference; the responding party shall submit its letter 4 days prior to
`the conference. The Court will read the written submissions of the parties before
`the phone conference, hear arguments of counsel at the conference, and if no one
`changes their decision during the phone conference regarding their willingness to
`participate in this informal resolution process, the Court will issue its decision at
`the conclusion of the phone conference or shortly after the conference. Depending
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1890 - Page 7
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 20 Filed 09/01/17 Page 8 of 10
`
`on the nature of the dispute, the Court may or may not issue a written order. If
`there is no agreement to resolve a dispute through this informal resolution
`process, then the dispute must be presented to the Court via formal motion and
`hearing.
`
`
`10. Dispositive Motions
`
`
`a. All dispositive motions (notice of motion, motion, memorandum of law, affidavits
`and proposed order) must be served, filed and HEARD on or before December 5,
`2018.
`
`b. Counsel for the moving party shall call Judge Schiltz’s Courtroom Deputy, Caryn
`Glover, at 612-664-5483 to schedule the hearing. Parties are reminded that the
`scheduling of a dispositive motion requires considerable advance notice (typically
`three to four months). Parties should attempt to schedule all dispositive motions
`for the same hearing and should strive to avoid duplication in their briefing.
`
` All dispositive motions shall be scheduled, filed and served in compliance with
`the Electronic Case Filing Procedures for the District of Minnesota and in
`compliance with Local Rule 7.1. When a motion, response or reply brief is filed
`on ECF, two paper courtesy copies (three-hole punched and unstapled and, if
`warranted, exhibits appropriately tabbed) of the pleading and all supporting
`documents shall be mailed or delivered to Courtroom Deputy Caryn Glover at the
`same time as the documents are posted on ECF.
`
`
` When scheduling a summary judgment hearing, the parties must notify the Court
`whether there will be cross-motions for summary judgment so that the Court may
`enter an appropriate briefing order. The parties should confer about the
`possibility of cross-motions before contacting chambers to schedule a summary
`judgment hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11. Status & Settlement Conferences
`
`
`a. The parties shall appear for an early settlement conference with the Court on
`January 17, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
`
`b. On or shortly before January 10, 2018, April 15, 2018, August 15, 2018, and
`December 10, 2018, counsel for each party shall submit four CONFIDENTIAL
`letters to the Court setting forth with reasonable specificity the status of the case;
`the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position; an update of efforts
`toward settlement; the last settlement positions of the parties; whether a
`settlement conference with a private mediator or the court would be productive;
`and a litigation budget. Each letter shall not exceed three pages. On or shortly
`before the date each such letter is due, counsel for the parties shall meet and
`confer to discuss the status of the case and discuss settlement.
`
`8
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1890 - Page 8
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 20 Filed 09/01/17 Page 9 of 10
`
`c. A formal settlement conference shall be scheduled by the Court on a later date
`when needed.
`
`12. Trial
`
`
`a. This case shall be ready for trial on April 15, 2019.
`
`b. Anticipated length of trial is five days.
`
`
`
`c. The parties agree that the video “An Introduction to the Patent System,”
`distributed by the Federal Judicial Center, should be shown to jurors in
`connection with its preliminary jury instructions.
`
`13. Prior Orders and Remedies
`
`
`a. All prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect.
`
`b. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior consistent
`Order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or the
`party such counsel represents to any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions and
`the like, including without limitation: assessment of costs, fines and attorneys’
`fees and disbursements; waiver of rights to object; exclusion or limitation of
`witnesses, testimony, exhibits and other evidence; striking of pleadings; complete
`or partial dismissal with prejudice; entry of whole or partial default judgment;
`and/or any other relief that this Court may from time to time deem appropriate.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Tony N. Leung
`
`Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung
`United States District Court
`District of Minnesota
`
`
`
`QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, Inc.
`17-cv-1969 PJS/TNL
`
`9
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1890 - Page 9
`
`

`

`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 20 Filed 09/01/17 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`
`Docket
`No.
`
`Description of
`Document
`
`Relevant
`Page
`Numbers
`
`Nonparty that
`Designated Doc.
`Confidential
`(If Any)
`
`Specific Reason Why Document
`Should Remain Sealed or Be
`Unsealed (it is insufficient to refer to
`a protective order)
`
`EXHIBIT A
`SAMPLE LOCAL RULE 5.6 GRID FOR CASES WITH U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TONY N. LEUNG
`
`
`
`Mark “X” in Applicable Column
`
`
`Parties
`Parties
`Parties
`Agree Doc.
`Agree Doc.
`Disagree
`Should
`Should Be
`Remain
`Unsealed
`Sealed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For documents with confidential information spanning more than one category, a separate entry should be used for each category of information. For example, a
`memorandum contains both confidential financial records and medical records:
`
`
`
`Mark “X” in Applicable Column
`Docket
`Parties
`Parties
`Parties
`No.
`Agree Doc.
`Agree Doc.
`Disagree
`Should
`Should Be
`Remain
`Unsealed
`Sealed
`
`Description of
`Document
`
`Relevant
`Page
`Numbers
`
`5, 8, 12-15,
`23-25
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nonparty that
`Designated Doc.
`Confidential
`(If Any)
`
`
`
`Specific Reason Why Document
`Should Remain Sealed or Be
`Unsealed (it is insufficient to refer to
`a protective order)
`
`Confidential financial information.
`
`16-20, 26-
`27
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Confidential medical records.
`
`Unredacted
`memorandum of in
`support of XYZ, Inc.’s
`motion for summary
`judgment
`Unredacted
`memorandum of in
`support of XYZ, Inc.’s
`motion for summary
`judgment
`
`26
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1890 - Page 10
`
`