Elekta Ltd. et al v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ELEKTA LTD. and
WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case No. 15-12169
VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
HON. AVERN COHN
Defendant.
_______________________________/
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS
I.
This is a patent case. Plaintiffs Elekta Ltd. (Elekta) and William Beaumont
Hospital (Beaumont) are suing defendant Varian Medical Systems, Inc. (Varian)
claiming direct and indirect infringement of three patents, all titled “Cone Beam
Computed Technology with a Flat Panel Imager.” The patents were developed by
physicians at Beaumont. Elekta is the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit, and
provides the patented technology to Beaumont’s Michigan hospitals. The papers
describe that the patented technology as “linear accelerators” which provide “precise
radiation cancer therapy, yet prevents destruction of healthy surrounding tissue, through
the use of cone beam computed tomography and flat-panel imaging systems.” Elekta
and Beaumont assert that Varian knew of the patented technology before they made a
competing product, which uses the patented technology, and sold it to other hospitals,
including Henry Ford, McLaren, and the University of Michigan. Elekta and Beaumont
further allege that Varian trained hospital staff in how to use the produce, thereby
inducing infringement by third parties.
II.
Before the Court is Varian’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the
alternative, to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. (Doc. 11). As
noted in the papers, the primary issue presented in the motion is presently before the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on mandamus. See In re: TC Heartland, LLC,
No. 15-000105 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2015). That is, whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)1 is sole
statute for purposes of determining a defendant’s residency in a patent case or is it
supplemented by the residency requirements under 28 U.S.C.§ 1391(c) as held in VE
Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F. 2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990).2
Under the circumstances, the prudent course is to stay proceedings pending the
Federal Circuit’s decision in TC Heartland. The parties shall promptly advise the Court
of the Federal Circuit’s decision.
1
Section 1400(b) provides:
Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial
district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed
acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of
business.
2
Section 1391(c) provides:
For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall
be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal
jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. In a State which has more than
one judicial district and in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to
personal jurisdiction at the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall
be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would
be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate
State, and, if there is no such district, the corporation shall be deemed to reside
in the district within which it has the most significant contacts.
2
Accordingly, proceedings in this matter are STAYED until further order of the
Court.3
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 5, 2015
Detroit, Michigan
3
The Court suggest that should venue in this district be found statutorily correct,
Varian is unlikely to prevail on its alternative argument regarding a transfer.
3
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?