QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, Inc.
Filing
245
ORDER denying 239 Motion to Stay. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's motion to continue stay 239 is DENIED. 2. The stay and injunction previously entered by the Court 224 are dissolved. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 10/5/2021. (CLG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
QXMÉDICAL, LLC,
Case No. 17‐CV‐1969 (PJS/TNL)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, LLC; ARROW
INTERNATIONAL LLC; TELEFLEX LIFE
SCIENCES LIMITED; and TELEFLEX LLC,
Defendants.
Courtland C. Merrill, SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR, LLP, for
plaintiff.
J. Thomas Vitt, JONES DAY, for defendants.
This case has been ready for trial since November 2019. In December 2019,
however, the Court granted the motion of plaintiff QXMédical, LLC (“QXMédical”) to
stay this action in light of pending petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) that had been
filed by non‐party Medtronic, Inc., (“Medtronic”) in connection with a different case
pending before this Court. ECF No. 194. After the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(“PTAB”) instituted review on Medtronic’s petitions, the Court granted QXMédical’s
motion to extend the stay. ECF No. 224.
The PTAB has now largely concluded its work and issued decisions on most of
the disputed claims. In addition, based on the PTAB’s prior rulings, the parties have a
good idea as to how the PTAB is likely to rule on the remaining claims. ECF No. 235
at 10–11. A number of claims at issue in this case survived IPR, including claims that
the Court has already found QXMédical to be infringing.
This matter is before the Court on QXMédical’s motion to continue the stay in
light of Medtronic’s decision to appeal the PTAB’s adverse decisions. In deciding
whether to grant a stay, courts consider such factors as whether a stay would prejudice
the nonmoving party, whether a stay will simplify the issues, and whether discovery is
complete and a trial date is set. Snyders Heart Valve LLC v. St. Jude Med. S.C. Inc.,
No. 18‐2030 (JRT/DTS), 2021 WL 1063005, at *4 (D. Minn. Mar. 19, 2021).
The balance of these factors weighs against extending the stay. Discovery has
long been complete and, as noted, the Court has already found that QXMédical’s
product infringes several of the claims at issue. This case has been ready for trial since
before the Court entered the initial stay and trial is scheduled to begin on January 24.
While it is possible that further proceedings could simplify this case, that consideration
does not outweigh the harm to defendants from further delay. Moreover, the Court
cannot ignore that QXMédical has already gotten the benefit of a long stay despite the
fact that it did not choose to petition for IPR and no longer has any right to do so.
QXMédical contends that the Court can continue the current injunction against U.S.
sales of QXMédical’s infringing product, leaving defendants no worse off. But
-2-
defendants are entitled to attempt to recover their damages, and given the very lengthy
delay that the Court has already countenanced in this case, the Court gives defendants’
preference substantial weight at this point. In short, given the rulings of the PTAB and
given the passage of time, the balance of equities has shifted and now weighs in
defendants’ favor. QXMédical’s motion to continue the stay is denied.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to continue stay [ECF No. 239] is DENIED.
2.
The stay and injunction previously entered by the Court [ECF No. 224] are
dissolved.
Dated: October 5, 2021
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
-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?