In re Application of AIS GmbH Aachen Innovative Solutions et al

Filing 16

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 1 Application for Discovery in Aid of Foreign Litigation Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1782. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

In re Application of AIS GMBH AACHEN
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS & ABIOMED
EUROPE GMBH, Petitioners, For an Order
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Take
Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings,
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, of Respondent Thoratec, LLC

Case No. 5:16-mc-80094-HRL
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR DISCOVERY IN AID OF
FOREIGN LITIGATION PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782
Re: Dkt. No. 1

17
18

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, AIS GmbH Aachen Innovative Solutions and Abiomed

19

Europe GmbH (collectively, petitioners), move for leave to conduct discovery of Thoratec, LLC

20

(Thoratec) in aid of patent litigation pending in Germany. Thoratec, the accused infringer in the

21

German actions, protests that the petitioners did not meet-and-confer before submitting the present

22

application. However, petitioners correctly note that § 1782 applications typically are brought on

23

an ex parte basis, and that the discovery target will then be given adequate notice of any discovery

24

and have the opportunity to either participate in the discovery or to move to quash it.

25

Upon consideration of the application and the supporting papers, the court finds that the

26

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 are satisfied. Petitioners’ application therefore is granted, and

27

they may serve their subpoena for documents and testimony. To the extent there are any

28

confidentiality concerns with respect to the requested discovery, this court finds that such concerns

1

would be sufficiently addressed by a protective order, such as the one proposed by petitioners.

2

However, the court will give the parties an opportunity to meet-and-confer and encourages them to

3

attempt to agree on the terms of such an order. Additionally, the instant order is without prejudice

4

to Thoratec to seek to quash the subpoena; but, in the event any discovery disputes arise, the

5

parties shall comply with the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes, which

6

(among other things) requires the submission of a joint discovery letter brief, rather than a noticed

7

motion.

8
9

SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 1, 2016

10
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate 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

1
2

5:16-mc-80094-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Andrew Radsch [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

3
4

Rebecca Rose Carrizosa [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

5

Richard T. McCaulley , Jr

6

Roger J. Chin

[e-mail]

[e-mail], #[e-mail]

7
Terrence J.P. Kearney

[e-mail]

8
9
10

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
3