Angioscore, Inc. v. Trireme Medical, Inc. et al

Filing 54

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying #26 Motion for Sanctions; denying #23 Motion to Strike (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 ANGIOSCORE, INC., 9 Plaintiff, 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 vs. TRIREME MEDICAL, INC. et al., Case No.: 12-CV-03393 YGR ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE, OR DISMISS CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS; AND (2) DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 11 Defendant(s). 13 14 Plaintiff AngioScore, Inc. (“AngioScore”) brings this patent infringement lawsuit against 15 Defendants TriReme Medical, Inc. (“TriReme”), Eitan Konstantino (“Konstantino “) and Quattro 16 Vascular PTE Ltd. TriReme and Konstantino Answered and Counterclaimed for Declarations of 17 noninfringement and invalidity, and sued for unfair business practices and other business torts. 18 AngioScore has filed a Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses and to Dismiss 19 Certain Counterclaims on the grounds that they fail to provide fair notice of the asserted claims or 20 defenses. TriReme and Konstantino have filed a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions on the grounds that 21 AngioScore failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts prior to filing this lawsuit. 22 Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, for the 23 reasons set forth at the hearing on the motions and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby 24 DENIES both Motions. 25 With respect to the Motion for Sanctions, it is premature at this stage in the litigation to 26 consider whether the factual contentions in the Amended Complaint have evidentiary support. The 27 parties have not conducted meaningful discovery, the Court has not construed the claims in the 28 1 patent-in-suit, and the merits of the case have not been decided. Therefore, the Court DENIES the 2 Motion for Sanctions. 3 As to the Motion to Strike, or Dismiss Certain Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims, 4 AngioScore requests more specificity and particularity than is required by Rule 8. Therefore, the 5 Court DENIES the Motion to Strike or Dismiss. 6 This Order Terminates Docket Numbers 23 & 26. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 Date: December 5, 2012 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?