CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Doc. 296 Filed 09/03/20 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`Case No. 19‐CV‐1760 (PJS/TNL)
`
`ORDER
`
`VASCULAR SOLUTIONS LLC; TELEFLEX
`LLC; TELEFLEX LIFE SCIENCES
`LIMITED; and ARROW INTERNATIONAL
`LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC. and MEDTRONIC
`VASCULAR, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`J. Derek Vandenburgh, Tara C. Norgard, Joseph W. Winkels, Alexander S.
`Rinn, Shelleaha L. Jonas, and Megan E. Hingtgen, CARLSON, CASPERS,
`VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST, P.A., for plaintiffs.
`
`Kurt J. Niederluecke, Lora M. Friedemann, Laura L. Myers, and Anne E.
`Rondoni Tavernier, FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A., for defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs Vascular Solutions, LLC, Teleflex LLC, Teleflex Life Sciences Limited,
`
`and Arrow International LLC (collectively “Teleflex”) bring this patent‐infringement
`
`action against defendants Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (collectively
`
`“Medtronic”). This matter is before the Court on Teleflex’s objection to the order of
`
`Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung granting Medtronic’s motion to stay the case pending
`
`the final resolution of inter partes review proceedings.
`
`IPR2020-00135
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1101 - Page 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`Case No. 19‐CV‐1760 (PJS/TNL)
`
`ORDER
`
`VASCULAR SOLUTIONS LLC; TELEFLEX
`LLC; TELEFLEX LIFE SCIENCES
`LIMITED; and ARROW INTERNATIONAL
`LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC. and MEDTRONIC
`VASCULAR, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`J. Derek Vandenburgh, Tara C. Norgard, Joseph W. Winkels, Alexander S.
`Rinn, Shelleaha L. Jonas, and Megan E. Hingtgen, CARLSON, CASPERS,
`VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST, P.A., for plaintiffs.
`
`Kurt J. Niederluecke, Lora M. Friedemann, Laura L. Myers, and Anne E.
`Rondoni Tavernier, FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A., for defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs Vascular Solutions, LLC, Teleflex LLC, Teleflex Life Sciences Limited,
`
`and Arrow International LLC (collectively “Teleflex”) bring this patent‐infringement
`
`action against defendants Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (collectively
`
`“Medtronic”). This matter is before the Court on Teleflex’s objection to the order of
`
`Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung granting Medtronic’s motion to stay the case pending
`
`the final resolution of inter partes review proceedings.
`
`IPR2020-00135
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1101 - Page 1
`
`
`
`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Doc. 296 Filed 09/03/20 Page 2 of 4
`
`A magistrate judge’s ruling on nondispositive matters may be reversed only if it
`
`is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
`
`Teleflex contends that Judge Leung applied an incorrect legal standard in
`
`determining whether a stay would cause undue prejudice to Teleflex. According to
`
`Teleflex, where the parties are in direct competition, undue prejudice is established as a
`
`matter of law, and it is error to consider whether the non‐moving party’s damages are
`
`reparable.
`
`The Court disagrees. Teleflex’s argument takes the general guidelines that courts
`
`have developed to determine how to exercise their “broad discretion” to stay
`
`proceedings and mischaracterizes them as a rigid set of rules. See Clinton v. Jones, 520
`
`U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an
`
`incident to its power to control its own docket.”); Digital Ally, Inc. v. Taser Int’l, Inc.,
`
`No. 16‐CV‐2032, 2017 WL 5517522, at *6 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2017) (“Courts are generally
`
`reluctant to stay proceedings where the parties are direct competitors.” (emphasis
`
`added, citation and quotation marks omitted)); Toshiba Tec Corp. v. Katun Corp., No. SA
`
`CV 15‐01979, 2016 WL 9137646, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (“The court’s analysis [of
`
`a motion to stay], however, is not limited to the three factors; rather the totality of the
`
`circumstances governs.” (cleaned up)); Card‐Monroe Corp. v. Tuftco Corp., No. 1:14‐cv‐
`
`292, 2015 WL 11109362, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 19, 2015) (“none of these factors are
`
`-2-
`
`IPR2020-00135
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1101 - Page 2
`
`
`
`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Doc. 296 Filed 09/03/20 Page 3 of 4
`
`controlling and a court’s decision to stay a case should be made after considering the
`
`totality of the circumstances” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
`
`Moreover, even in the cases on which Teleflex relies, courts consider whether the
`
`threatened harm to the non‐moving party is reparable. See, e.g., Becon Med., Ltd. v.
`
`Bartlett, No. 18‐4169, 2019 WL 6910130, at *2 (E.D. Penn. Dec. 18, 2019) (explaining that
`
`courts are “reluctant” to stay proceedings between direct competitors because the
`
`infringer may inflict irreparable injuries); Toshiba Tec Corp., 2016 WL 9137646, at *4
`
`(citing cases explaining that infringement among competitors can cause irreparable
`
`harm); Card‐Monroe Corp., 2015 WL 11109362, at *2 (“Courts are reluctant to stay
`
`proceedings where the parties are direct competitors because patent infringement in
`
`that situation may not be compensable by money damages.” (citation and quotation
`
`marks omitted)); Am. Med. Sys. v. Laser Peripherals, LLC, No. 08‐4798 (JNE/FLN), 2010
`
`WL 11537576, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 23, 2010) (“the availability of monetary damages can
`
`ameliorate potential undue prejudice or tactical disadvantage in some situations”).
`
`True, some courts have cautioned against conflating “undue prejudice” with
`
`“irreparable harm.” United Pet Grp., Inc. v. MiracleCorp Prods., No. 4:12CV00440AGF,
`
`2012 WL 2458539, at *3 (E.D. Mo. June 27, 2012) (“Irreparable harm, however, is not the
`
`standard in the present context; rather, the standard, as articulated above, requires only
`
`that the nonmoving party show ‘prejudice,’ which the Court believes Plaintiff has
`
`-3-
`
`IPR2020-00135
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1101 - Page 3
`
`
`
`CASE 0:19-cv-01760-PJS-TNL Doc. 296 Filed 09/03/20 Page 4 of 4
`
`done.”). In the Court’s view, however, this does not mean that the issue is irrelevant;
`
`rather, it is included in the totality of the circumstances that a court may consider in
`
`determining whether to grant a stay. Judge Leung did not commit legal error by
`
`considering whether Teleflex’s alleged damages are reparable, nor did he clearly err in
`
`concluding that the harm Teleflex may suffer is likely to be of the reparable variety.
`
`Teleflex’s remaining arguments primarily focus on the claim that Judge Leung
`
`improperly weighed the relevant factors in determining that the totality of the
`
`circumstances warranted staying this case. Having reviewed the order and Teleflex’s
`
`objection, however, the Court sees nothing clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The
`
`order is therefore affirmed.
`
`ORDER
`
`Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiffs’ objection [ECF No. 284] to the July 7, 2020
`
`order of Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung staying this matter pending the final
`
`resolution of inter partes review proceedings is OVERRULED and the order [ECF
`
`No. 276] is AFFIRMED.
`
`Dated: September 3, 2020
`
` s/Patrick J. Schiltz
`Patrick J. Schiltz
`United States District Judge
`
`-4-
`
`IPR2020-00135
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`Medtronic Exhibit 1101 - Page 4
`
`
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
