Medtronic Vascular Inc. et al v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Inc. et al

Filing 581

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL re 580 Stipulation filed by Medtronic USA Inc., Medtronic Vascular Galway Ltd., Medtronic Inc., Medtronic Vascular Inc. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/30/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA, 6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 TEL: (415) 434-4484; FAX: (415) 434-4507 NANCY J. GEENEN, BAR NO. 135968 ngeenen@foley.com FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 777 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE, SUITE 3800 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-5306 TEL: (414) 271-2400; FAX: (414) 297-4900 RICHARD S. FLORSHEIM, PRO HAC VICE rflorsheim@foley.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS, COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS TO COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION, AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., MEDTRONIC USA, INC., MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, GALWAY, LTD. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 WEST MONROE STREET CHICAGO, IL 60661-3693 TEL: (312) 902-5200; FAX: (312) 902-1061 TIMOTHY J. VEZEAU, PRO HAC VICE timothy.vezeau@kattenlaw.com KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 710 SANSOME STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 TEL: (415) 391-5400; FAX: (415) 397-7188 ROBERT A. VAN NEST, BAR NO. 84065 rvannest@kvn.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT TO COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION, AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF EVYSIO MEDICAL DEVICES ULC FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 225 FRANKLIN STREET BOSTON, MA 02110-2804 TEL: (617) 542-5070; FAX: (617) 542-8906 FRANK E. SCHERKENBACH, BAR NO. 142549 scherkenbach@fr.com KURT L. GLITZENSTEIN, PRO HAC VICE glitzenstein@fr.com ELIZABETH A. BROWN, BAR NO. 193540 Elizabeth.brown@fr.com CHRISTOPHER R. DILLON, PRO HAC VICE Dillon@fr.com ADAM J. KESSEL, PRO HAC VICE kessel@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 500 ARGUELLO STREET, SUITE 500 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 TEL: (650) 839-5070; FAX: (650) 839-5071 LIMIN ZHENG zheng@fr.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., Case No. 06-01066-PJH MEDTRONIC USA, INC., MEDTRONIC, 19 INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR GALWAY, STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND LTD., and EVYSIO MEDICAL DEVICES [PROPOSED] ORDER 20 ULC, 21 22 23 24 v. Plaintiffs, Counterclaim Defendants, Defendants to Complaint-In-Intervention, and Counterclaim Plaintiffs, ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, 25 INC., ABBOTT LABORATORIES, and ABBOTT VASCULAR, INC., 26 Defendants and Counterclaim 27 Plaintiffs, 28 and STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 06-01066-PJH MILW_8259180.1 1 2 3 4 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Intervenor and Counterclaim Defendant. WHEREAS, the parties hereto, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants/Defendants to 5 Complaint-In-Intervention/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Medtronic Vascular, Inc., Medtronic USA, 6 Inc., Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Vascular, Galway, Ltd., and evYsio Medical Devices ULC, 7 (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Plaintiff-Intervenor/Counterclaim Defendant Boston Scientific 8 Corporation ("BSC"), have agreed to stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice of the claims and 9 counterclaims relating to the allegations by and against BSC; 10 WHEREAS, the stipulation in no way limits the Plaintiffs' freedom to bring or continue an 11 action or to assert claims with respect to products made or sold by any party other than BSC and, 12 specifically, does not limit in any way the Plaintiffs' freedom to bring or continue this action 13 asserting claims against the Abbott defendants for infringement of the patents-in-suit by making, 14 providing, transferring or selling the Promus stent to or for the benefit of BSC; 15 NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and BSC hereby stipulate, through their respective 16 undersigned counsel, that all claims and counterclaims by and against BSC in this action, 17 including any counterclaims against BSC and claims asserted by BSC in this action, shall be 18 dismissed without prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 06-01066-PJH Respectfully submitted, Date: January 29, 2009 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP By: s/ Jeffrey N. Costakos Jeffrey N. Costakos Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Counterclaim Defendants, Defendants to Complaint-InIntervention, and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Medtronic Vascular, Inc., Medtronic USA, Inc., Medtronic, Inc., and Medtronic Vascular Galway, Ltd. 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 Date: January 29, 2009 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP By: s/ Timothy J. Vezeau Timothy J. Vezeau Attorneys for Attorneys for Plaintiff, Counterclaim Defendant, Defendant to Complaint-In-Intervention, and Counterclaim Plaintiff evYsio Medical Devices ULC Date: January 29, 2009 FISH AND RICHARDSON P.C. By: s/ Christopher R. Dillon Christopher R. Dillon Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor and Counterclaim Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation Concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Christopher R. Dillon, the signatory listed above. Date: January 29, 2009 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP By: s/ Jeffrey N. Costakos Jeffrey N. Costakos Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Counterclaim Defendants, Defendants to Complaint-InIntervention, and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Medtronic Vascular, Inc., Medtronic USA, Inc., Medtronic, Inc., and Medtronic Vascular Galway, Ltd. 3 STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 06-01066-PJH 1 2 3 ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 J ER N D IS T IC T R OF 4 STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 06-01066-PJH A C LI FO yllis J. udge Ph Hamilto n R NIA Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton D RDERE S SO O Judge United States District IT I UNIT ED 1/30/09 Date: ______________________ S 4 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O NO RT H

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?