Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:486
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Mark D. Fowler (SBN 124235)
`mark.fowler@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, California 94303-2250
`T: (650) 833-2000 | F: (650) 833-2001
`
`Kathryn Riley Grasso (SBN 211187)
`kathryn.riley@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`T: (619) 699-2700 | F: (619) 699-2701
`
`Martin M. Ellison (SBN 292060)
`martin.ellison@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400, N. Tower
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`T: (310) 595-3000 | F: (310) 595-3300
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Medtronic CoreValve LLC
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Colibri Heart Valve, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`Medtronic CoreValve LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE
`Hon. David O. Carter
`
`MEDTRONIC COREVALVE LLC’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION
`PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Hearing Date: October 5, 2020
`Time:
`8:30 a.m. PT
`Room: 9D
`
`NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
`REQUESTED BY THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 1 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:487
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`
`To the Court and all parties and their respective attorneys of record:
`
`Please take notice that at the above time and place, Defendant Medtronic
`
`CoreValve LLC (“Medtronic”) will and hereby does move for an order to stay this
`
`litigation pending the outcome of Medtronic’s petitions for Inter Partes Review of
`
`the patents-in-suit. Medtronic makes this Motion on the grounds that (1) a stay
`
`pending IPR could resolve the entire case, or simplify the issues in the case, because
`
`the IPR petitions address every asserted claim of both asserted patents; (2)
`
`Medtronic has yet to file an answer to Plaintiff Colibri Heart Valve, LLC’s
`
`10
`
`(“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”); (3) a scheduling order has not
`
`11
`
`issued; (4) discovery has not commenced; and (5) Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by
`
`12
`
`a stay because it waited more than five months to serve Medtronic with a complaint
`
`13
`
`and failed to move for a preliminary injunction.
`
`14
`
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points
`
`15
`
`and Authorities attached hereto, the Declaration of Martin M. Ellison and
`
`16
`
`accompanying exhibits filed concurrently herewith, all materials incorporated or
`
`17
`
`relied upon in it, matters of which this Court may take judicial notice, and any and
`
`18
`
`all other materials that the Court deems proper to consider.
`
`19
`
`Because the present Motion is best addressed without a hearing (Fed. R. Civ.
`
`20
`
`P. 78 and C.D. Cal. R. 7-15), Medtronic waives oral argument on this matter unless
`
`21
`
`requested by the Court.
`
`22
`
`This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3
`
`23
`
`which took place on August 28, 2020.
`
`
`Dated: September 4, 2020
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Martin M. Ellison
`
`
`
`Martin M. Ellison (SBN 292060)
`martin.ellison@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 Avenue of the Stars
`
`1
`
`
`Notice of Motion by Medtronic CoreValve LLC
`to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 2 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:488
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Suite 400, North Tower
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`T: (310) 595-3000 | F: (310) 595-3300
`
`Mark D. Fowler (SBN 124235)
`mark.fowler@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, California 94303-2250
`T: (650) 833-2000 | F: (650) 833-2001
`
`Kathryn Riley Grasso (SBN 211187)
`kathryn.riley@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`T: (619) 699-2700 | F: (619) 699-2701
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`Notice of Motion by Medtronic CoreValve LLC
`to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 3 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:489
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDING ................................................ 1
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Patents and the Accused Products ................................. 2
`
`The IPR Petitions ................................................................................. 2
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................... 2
`
`V. DISCUSSION................................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Case Is in Its Infancy .................................................................... 3
`
`The IPR Proceedings Could Entirely Resolve this Litigation, and
`at a Minimum Will Reduce the Burden on the Parties and the
`Court ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Plaintiff, Having Itself Already Invited Significant Delay, Will
`Suffer No Prejudice .............................................................................. 5
`
`15
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 7
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EAST\175187517.2
`
`i
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 4 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:490
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Autoalert, Inc. v. Dominion Dealer Sols., LLC,
`No. SACV 12-1661-JST, 2013 WL 8014977 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2013) .............. 5
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 2
`
`Gould v. Control Laser Corp.,
`705 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .............................................................................. 2
`
`In re Cygnus Telecomms. Tech., LLC, Patent Litig.,
`385 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2005) .................................................................. 2
`
`Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`No. 14-cv-00876-RS (N.D.Cal. Mar. 30, 2015) ..................................................... 6
`
`Limestone v. Micron Tech.,
`No. SA CV 15-00278-DOC (RNBx),
`2016 WL 3598109 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) ..................................................... 3, 4
`
`Matthews v. Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council,
`688 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 6
`
`Medtronic, Inc., et al. v. Axonics Modulation Techs., Inc.,
`No. SA-CV-1902115-DOC-JDE,
`2020 WL 5087820 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2020) .......................................................... 4
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`69 F. Supp. 3d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................... 5
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc.,
`No. 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO,
`2016 WL 7496740 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2016) ....................................................... 3
`
`Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd. v. Chimei Innolux Corp.,
`No. SA CV 12-21-JST,
`2012 WL 7170593 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012)........................................................ 3
`
`Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc.,
`943 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (C.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 5 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:491
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 5
`
`Wonderland Nursery Goods Co. v. Baby Trend, Inc.,
`No. EDCV 14-01153 VAP (SPx),
`2015 WL 1809309 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2015) ....................................................... 4
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 26 ........................................................................................... 2, 4
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC et al.,
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02351-DOC-JDE, ECF 1 (Dec. 5, 2019) .................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 6 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:492
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Medtronic filed two petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) with the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on September 2, 2020, and now respectfully
`
`requests that the Court stay this litigation pending the outcomes of those petitions.
`
`The IPR petitions address every claim of the two patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,900,294 and 9,125,739 (“the ’294 patent” and “the ’739 patent,” respectively).
`
`Thus, a decision by the PTAB that invalidates the patents-in-suit will resolve
`
`Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Medtronic in its entirety, and at a minimum greatly
`
`10
`
`simplify the issues that will ultimately go to a jury. Moreover, the case is at a very
`
`11
`
`early stage. Indeed, Medtronic has not answered Plaintiff’s First Amended
`
`12
`
`Complaint (“FAC”), discovery has not commenced, and a scheduling order has not
`
`13
`
`issued. Finally, Plaintiff—having delayed the start of this action by more than five
`
`14
`
`months and having not moved for a preliminary injunction—will not be prejudiced
`
`15
`
`by a stay pending IPR.
`
`16
`
`Medtronic therefore respectfully requests that this litigation be stayed.
`
`17
`
`II. NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDING
`
`18
`
`Despite filing a complaint on December 5, 2019, Plaintiff never served it.
`
`19
`
`(See Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC et al., Case No. 8:19-
`
`20
`
`cv-02351-DOC-JDE, ECF 1.) Instead, Plaintiff waited five months and on May 4,
`
`21
`
`2020, dismissed the case without prejudice (id. at ECF 18) and filed the instant
`
`22
`
`lawsuit the same day.1 (See ECF 1.) Then, after being confronted with the
`
`23
`
`deficiencies in the original complaint, Plaintiff filed its FAC on June 12, 2020.
`
`24
`
`(ECF 30.) Medtronic moved to dismiss the deficient FAC on July 17, 2020 (ECF
`
`25
`
`38), and the hearing on Medtronic’s Motion is set for September 14, 2020, the same
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1 The May 4, 2020 complaint is identical to the December 5, 2019 complaint in all
`material respects.
`
`
`1
`
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Medtronic
`CoreValve LLC’s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 7 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:493
`
`
`
`day as the Rule 26 Scheduling Conference (ECF 45).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A. The Asserted Patents and the Accused Products
`
`The two asserted patents relate to artificial heart valves and methods for using
`
`them. (ECF 30, ¶¶ 1, 4.) The ’294 patent consists of four method claims, and the
`
`’739 patent contains five apparatus claims. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-22). Plaintiff accuses
`
`Medtronic’s CoreValve™ product line of infringing all four claims of the ’294
`
`patent and at least claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the ’739 patent. (Id. at ¶¶ 49, 60.)
`
`B.
`
`The IPR Petitions
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`On September 2, 2020, Medtronic filed IPR petitions for all claims of the
`
`11
`
`asserted patents. (ECF 51, Ex. 1 [IPR2020-01453] and Ex. 2 [IPR2020-01454].)
`
`12
`
`Plaintiff’s preliminary responses to the IPR petitions are due in roughly three
`
`13
`
`months, on or around December 15, 2020. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b). If Plaintiff so
`
`14
`
`chooses, it can waive the preliminary response in order to expedite the PTAB’s
`
`15
`
`decision whether to institute proceedings. Id. If Plaintiff does waive its preliminary
`
`16
`
`response, the institution decision could arrive within three months of that waiver.
`
`17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b). Otherwise, the latest date for an institution decision would be
`
`18
`
`on or around March 15, 2020. Id. It is highly likely that the final written decision
`
`19
`
`will issue within 12 months, on or about March 15, 2021.
`
`20
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`21
`
`“Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings,
`
`22
`
`including the authority to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO reexamination.”
`
`23
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
`
`24
`
`A stay may be “particularly justified where the outcome of the reexamination would
`
`25
`
`be likely to assist the court in determining patent validity and, if the claims were
`
`26
`
`cancelled in the reexamination, would eliminate the need to try the infringement
`
`27
`
`issue.” In re Cygnus Telecomms. Tech., LLC, Patent Litig., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1022,
`
`28
`
`1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1342
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Medtronic
`CoreValve LLC’s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 8 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:494
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1983)). Thus, there is a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay
`
`pending IPR, when, as here, the case is in its initial stages and there has been little or
`
`no discovery. See Limestone v. Micron Tech., No. SA CV 15-00278-DOC (RNBx),
`
`2016 WL 3598109, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016).
`
`To determine whether to stay a case pending IPR, courts in this district
`
`typically consider three factors: “(1) whether discovery is complete and whether a
`
`trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and
`
`trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear
`
`tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party.” Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Universal
`
`10
`
`Remote Control, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1030-31 (C.D. Cal. 2013). The three
`
`11
`
`factors “are not exhaustive, however, as the decision whether to order a stay must be
`
`12
`
`based on the totality of the circumstances.” Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston
`
`13
`
`Tech. Co., Inc., No. 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO, 2016 WL 7496740, at *1 (C.D. Cal.
`
`14
`
`Nov. 17, 2016) (citing Universal Elecs., Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d at 1030-31).
`
`15
`
`V. DISCUSSION
`
`16
`
`17
`
`A. The Case Is in Its Infancy
`
`When evaluating the first factor, the stage of the proceeding, the test typically
`
`18
`
`employed is whether “there is more work ahead of the parties and the Court than
`
`19
`
`behind the parties and the Court.” Limestone, 2016 WL 3598109 at *3 (quoting
`
`20
`
`Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd. v. Chimei Innolux Corp., No. SA CV 12-21-
`
`21
`
`JST (JPRx), 2012 WL 7170593, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012)). That is certainly
`
`22
`
`the case here.
`
`23
`
`Discovery has not begun. (ECF 51 [Ellison Decl.], ¶ 6.) Initial disclosures
`
`24
`
`have not been exchanged,2 and the parties have not served any requests for
`
`25
`
`production, interrogatories, or requests for admission. (Id.) No depositions have
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`2 Initial disclosures are set to be exchanged ten days after the Court’s decision on
`Medtronic’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 48).
`3
`
`
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Medtronic
`CoreValve LLC’s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 9 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:495
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`been noticed, nor third-party subpoenas issued. (Id.) The parties have not
`
`exchanged infringement or invalidity contentions, nor have they discussed claim
`
`construction. (Id.) Expert discovery has not commenced, and no summary
`
`judgment motions have been filed. (Id.) The only motion filed is Medtronic’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss the FAC, which—because that Motion is still pending—means
`
`that Medtronic has not yet answered Plaintiff’s FAC. (Id.)
`
`The parties submitted a Joint Rule 26(f) Report four days before this Motion
`
`(ECF 48), and the Scheduling Conference has not yet taken place, it is scheduled for
`
`September 14, 2020. Thus, no trial date has been set at this time, although it is
`
`10
`
`possible that one may be set by the time the parties’ briefs on this motion have been
`
`11
`
`taken under submission.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Here, the early nature of the proceedings strongly favors a stay.
`
`B.
`
`The IPR Proceedings Could Entirely Resolve this Litigation, and at
`
`a Minimum Will Reduce the Burden on the Parties and the Court
`
`All of the asserted claims have been challenged in IPR. Because each patent
`
`16
`
`has so few claims, and each patent consists of just one independent claim, an
`
`17
`
`outcome in IPR proceedings has the potential to significantly streamline this
`
`18
`
`litigation, if not dispose of it entirely. See Wonderland Nursery Goods Co. v. Baby
`
`19
`
`Trend, Inc., No. EDCV 14-01153 VAP (SPx), 2015 WL 1809309, at *3 (C.D. Cal.
`
`20
`
`Apr. 20, 2015) (recognizing, for the second factor, that “because Defendants have
`
`21
`
`petitioned for review of all claims asserted in this action, the outcome of the IPR has
`
`22
`
`the potential to be case-dispositive”).3 Even if the case is not disposed of entirely,
`
`23
`
`because one or more of the challenged claims survive the IPR, the case still will be
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`3 Although the PTAB has not yet instituted IPR proceedings for the asserted patents,
`courts in this district often grant motions to stay before an institution decision. See
`Limestone, 2016 WL 3598109 at *4 (quoting Wonderland Nursery Goods, 2015 WL
`1809309 at *3) (granting motion to stay prior to IPR institution); see also
`Medtronic, Inc., et al. v. Axonics Modulation Techs., Inc., No. SA-CV-1902115-
`DOC-JDE, 2020 WL 5087820, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2020) (same).
`4
`
`
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Medtronic
`CoreValve LLC’s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 10 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:496
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`streamlined because Medtronic will be estopped from raising defenses that were or
`
`could have been raised in the IPR, thereby reducing the issues for trial and the
`
`burden on the Court and the parties. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).
`
`Thus, this factor also weighs in favor of a stay.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff, Having Itself Already Invited Significant Delay, Will
`
`Suffer No Prejudice
`
`Plaintiff has “demonstrate[d] a lack of urgency in the prosecution of this
`
`case,” and therefore it will suffer no prejudice from a stay. Autoalert, Inc. v.
`
`Dominion Dealer Sols., LLC, No. SACV 12-1661-JST, 2013 WL 8014977, at *3
`
`10
`
`(C.D. Cal. May 22, 2013) (granting motion to stay pending IPR, and noting factors
`
`11
`
`“that undermine Plaintiff’s assertion of undue prejudice,” including that “Plaintiff
`
`12
`
`waited to file its Complaint for at least two years after acquiring its patents,” and
`
`13
`
`that “Plaintiff then waited more than three months from filing its Complaint to serve
`
`14
`
`it on Defendants”); see also PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 69 F. Supp. 3d
`
`15
`
`1022, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“Courts have repeatedly found no undue prejudice
`
`16
`
`unless the patentee makes a specific showing of prejudice beyond the delay
`
`17
`
`necessarily inherent in any stay.”). First, the asserted patents issued in 2014 and
`
`18
`
`2015, and the FAC indicates that some of the accused products have been on the
`
`19
`
`market since that time. (See ECF 30, ¶¶ 25, 31.) Plaintiff therefore waited nearly
`
`20
`
`five years to sue Medtronic, which indicates a lack of urgency on Plaintiff’s part.
`
`21
`
`Second, Plaintiff has not moved for a preliminary injunction, which belies any claim
`
`22
`
`Plaintiff might make that it needs an immediate injunction rather than damages. See
`
`23
`
`VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1318-20 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`24
`
`(finding that “rational reasons for not pursuing a preliminary injunction”
`
`25
`
`nevertheless contradicted the plaintiff’s “assertion that it needs injunctive relief as
`
`26
`
`soon as possible”). Third, Plaintiff began its litigation against Medtronic with a
`
`27
`
`self-imposed delay of five months: Plaintiff filed the December 2019 complaint, but
`
`28
`
`never served it, then waited until May 2020 to dismiss and re-file the same
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Medtronic
`CoreValve LLC’s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 11 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:497
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`complaint. Fourth, Plaintiff has not resolved disputes in a timely manner. For
`
`example, when Medtronic pointed out problems with the complaint and the FAC,
`
`Plaintiff refused to fix them, forced Medtronic to file a Motion to Dismiss, and
`
`then—during the course of briefing—unilaterally “dropped” several of the
`
`problematic claims without excuse or explanation. (ECF 46, 15, 17.) Finally, it was
`
`Plaintiff—not Medtronic—that initially requested an extended briefing schedule and
`
`later hearing date for the Motion to Dismiss, thereby further delaying Medtronic’s
`
`answer. (ECF 51, ¶ 6.)
`
`Moreover, it should be undisputed that Medtronic and Plaintiff are not
`
`10
`
`competitors in the field of replacement heart valve devices. Plaintiff’s website
`
`11
`
`expressly states that its “products and technology are in clinical development” and
`
`12
`
`that “[n]o devices or other products are currently offered for sale by the company.”
`
`13
`
`(See Colibri Website, Tavi System Webpage, at https://www.colibrihv.com/
`
`14
`
`technology/tavi-system/.)4 This is confirmed by Plaintiff’s FAC, which not only
`
`15
`
`fails to allege that Plaintiff’s devices practice the asserted patents, but also refers to
`
`16
`
`early human feasibility studies associated with Plaintiff’s devices, which is an
`
`17
`
`investigation performed prior to obtaining regulatory approval for general use in the
`
`18
`
`U.S. (See ECF 30, ¶ 15.) This further weighs in favor of a stay. See Karl Storz
`
`19
`
`Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 14-cv-00876-RS, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
`
`20
`
`Mar. 30, 2015) (“One relevant consideration in evaluating [Plaintiff’s] claims of
`
`21
`
`undue harm is whether the parties are sole competitors in the relevant markets.”).
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Thus, this factor, like factors one and two, favors a stay.
`
`
`4 Medtronic does not anticipate that Plaintiff will dispute the accuracy of the
`statements on its own website. Thus, although these statements are not essential to a
`finding that the third factor favors a stay, they would nonetheless be judicially
`noticeable for that purpose. See Matthews v. Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council,
`688 F.3d 1107, 1113 n.5 (9th Cir. 2012) (granting request to take judicial notice of
`opposing party’s website where opposing party did not object to the request or
`question the accuracy of the information contained therein).
`6
`
`
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Medtronic
`CoreValve LLC’s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 12 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00847-DOC-JDE Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:498
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, all three factors favor a stay of this litigation,
`
`and Medtronic respectfully requests that the Court stay these proceedings pending
`
`the outcome of Medtronic’s IPR petitions.
`
`
`Dated: September 4, 2020
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Martin M. Ellison
`
`
`
`Martin M. Ellison (SBN 292060)
`martin.ellison@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 400, North Tower
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`T: (310) 595-3000 | F: (310) 595-3300
`
`Mark D. Fowler (SBN 124235)
`mark.fowler@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, California 94303-2250
`T: (650) 833-2000 | F: (650) 833-2001
`
`Kathryn Riley Grasso (SBN 211187)
`kathryn.riley@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`T: (619) 699-2700 | F: (619) 699-2701
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Medtronic
`CoreValve LLC’s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2008, Page 13 of 13
`
`