`
`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
`
`