`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`Case No. 17‐CV‐1969 (PJS/TNL)
`
`ORDER
`
`QXMÉDICAL, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, LLC; TELEFLEX
`INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L.; and ARROW
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Courtland C. Merrill and Philip J. Kaplan, ANTHONY OSTLUND BAER
`& LOUWAGIE P.A., for plaintiff.
`
`J. Thomas Vitt, Emily Justine Tait, Patrick J. O’Rear, and Sanjiv Prakash
`Laud, JONES DAY; Kenneth E. Levitt, DORSEY & WHITNEY, for
`defendants.
`
`Plaintiff QXMédical, LLC (“QXMédical”) filed this action in June 2017, seeking a
`
`declaration that its Boosting Catheter does not infringe any of defendants’ (collectively
`
`“Teleflex’s”) patents and that Teleflex’s patents are invalid. Teleflex counterclaimed for
`
`infringement, asserting claims in six patents. The Court issued an order construing
`
`certain terms of the patents in October 2018 and an order on the parties’ motions for
`
`summary judgment in October 2019. ECF Nos. 102, 156. Trial is scheduled to begin on
`
`February 24, 2020.
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1894 - Page 1
`
`
`
`In July 2019, Teleflex and related parties brought an infringement action against
`
`Medtronic, Inc. and related parties (collectively “Medtronic”), asserting many of the
`
`same patent claims at issue in this case. See Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`
`No. 19‐CV‐1760 (PJS/TNL). Between November 12 and 14, 2019, Medtronic filed 13
`
`petitions for inter partes review of a number of Teleflex’s patent claims, including all but
`
`two of the claims at issue in this case. A decision on whether to institute review is due
`
`in mid‐May 2020. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b).
`
`In light of the pendency of Medtronic’s petitions, QXMédical seeks a stay of this
`
`action. QXMédical states that, if the Court grants a stay, it will suspend domestic sales
`
`of its Boosting Catheter during the pendency of the stay and waive two of its remaining
`
`invalidity defenses (obviousness and anticipation1), thus simplifying the trial. Given
`
`these concessions, the Court finds that a stay until such time as the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board decides whether to institute review on Medtronic’s petitions is
`
`warranted. The Court will therefore reschedule the trial for June 22, 2019. A formal
`
`trial notice setting forth all deadlines will follow. If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`decides to institute review, the Court will invite the parties to brief whether the stay
`
`should extend through the conclusion of the review process.
`
`1QXMédical’s remaining anticipation defense relates to claim 1 of the RE45,380
`patent; QXMédical retains its right to appeal the Court’s rejection, at summary
`judgment, of its anticipation defense relating to claim 53 of the RE46,116 patent.
`
`-2-
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1894 - Page 2
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff’s motion to stay [ECF No. 173] is GRANTED in part.
`
`This case is STAYED until such time as the Patent Trial and Review Board
`
`issues a decision on whether to institute review in response to any of the
`
`petitions filed by Medtronic, Inc., that seek review of patent claims
`
`involved in this case.
`
`The parties must notify the Court of the Patent Trial and Review Board’s
`
`decision as soon as reasonably possible after it is rendered.
`
`Until further order of the Court, plaintiff is enjoined from selling its
`
`infringing Boosting Catheter product in the United States.
`
`Plaintiff’s remaining defenses of obviousness and anticipation are waived.
`
`Trial in this matter is scheduled to begin on June 22, 2019.
`
`Dated: December 26, 2019
`
`s/Patrick J. Schiltz
`Patrick J. Schiltz
`United States District Judge
`
`-3-
`
`IPR2020-00131
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1894 - Page 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
