CR Bard v. Medical Components
Filing
71
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 42 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on 7/25/12. (alp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
C.R. BARD, INC., a New Jersey
corporation,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation,
Case No. 2:12-cv-00032-TS-EJF
Chief Judge Ted Stewart
Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse
Defendant.
Chief District Judge Ted Stewart referred this matter to the undersigned pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the Court is Plaintiff C.R. Bard, Inc.’s (“Bard”) Motion for PreTrial Consolidation of Related Cases Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).2 The Court has carefully
reviewed the motion and memoranda submitted by the parties. For the reasons set forth below,
Bard’s motion is DENIED. The Court will reconsider whether to consolidate for purposes of
claim construction at a later time, as set forth below, and will separately enter new scheduling
orders with identical deadlines for each case.
BACKGROUND
Bard filed the instant motion seeking to consolidate for pre-trial purposes related cases
alleging patent infringement it filed against three separate defendants, Medical Components, Inc.
(“Medcomp”), AngioDynamics, Inc., (“AngioDynamics”), and Smiths Medical ASD, Inc.,
1
See docket no. 31.
2
See docket no. 42.
(“Smiths”) (collectively, the “Defendants”).3 In these cases, Bard alleges that all three
Defendants have infringed two Bard patents, and that two of the three Defendants, Medcomp and
AngioDynamics, have infringed a third Bard patent.
In support of its motion, Bard argues that these cases warrant pre-trial consolidation
because: (1) the cases involve the same patents and present common questions of law and fact;
(2) pre-trial consolidation would “avoid substantial duplication of labor, unnecessary costs, and
the potential for inconsistent rulings”; and (3) the benefits of pre-trial consolidation “are clear,
and no alleged disadvantage outweighs those benefits.”4 The Defendants raise many similar
arguments and concerns in opposing pre-trial consolidation. By way of brief, non-exhaustive
summary, Defendants oppose pre-trial consolidation because: (1) consolidation will reduce
efficiency because Defendants and their products are not identical, Defendants may take
different positions on discovery issues, claim construction, etc., and Defendants will have
different witnesses and document productions; (2) that Defendants are competitors and may have
to provide sensitive information will complicate discovery; and (3) pre-trial consolidation would
violate the spirit of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), codified at 35 U.S.C. § 299.
ANALYSIS
I. America Invents Act
As an initial matter, the Court notes that the America Invents Act remains silent on pretrial consolidation. See 35 U.S.C. § 299 (2011). As such, the AIA does not affect the authority
of a court to order pre-trial consolidation of related patent cases. See In re Bear Creek Techs.,
Inc., (‘722) Patent Litigation, MDL No. 2344, 2012 WL 1523340, at *2 (J.P.M.L. May 2, 2012)
3
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-00032; C.R. Bard, Inc. v.
AngioDynamics, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-00035; and C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Smiths Medical ASD, Inc.,
Case No. 2:12-cv-00036 (collectively, the “Cases”).
4
Docket no. 43.
2
(finding that the AIA did not alter the Panel’s “authority to order pretrial centralization”); In re
World Wide Medical Tech. LLC, Nos. 4:11-cv-614, 4:12-cv-170, 2012 WL 1252423, at *1 (N.D.
Fla. April 13, 2012) (consolidating patent cases for pretrial matters). This Court does not view
consolidation in these cases as violative of the spirit of the AIA.
II. Consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[i]f actions before the
court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or
all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to
avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Civil rule 42-1 of the United States
District Court for the District of Utah Rules of Practice allows for consolidation of multiple cases
in certain circumstances. See DUCivR 42-1. While a court may exercise its discretion to order
pre-trial consolidation of cases involving patent disputes with common questions of law or fact,
see Phillip M. Adams & Assocs., LLC v. Dell Inc., Nos. 1:05-cv-64, 2:07-cv-422, 2008 WL
203316 (D. Utah Jan. 23, 2008), it need not do so where it finds insufficient justification, see
Rudd v. Lux Prods. Corp., No. 09-cv-6957, 2011 WL 148052, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2011).
Here, Bard alleges that all three Defendants have infringed the same two Bard patents
and that two of the Defendants have infringed the same third Bard patent. Defendants do,
however, constitute separate entities and market competitors each producing separate products.
While some questions of law and fact related to these allegations may likely overlap, at this stage
of the litigations the extent of any overlap remains largely speculative. Further, these issues will
not likely predominate. The Court does not think pre-trial consolidation of the Cases will
promote judicial economy or efficiency. Rather, the Court finds Defendants’ arguments against
pre-trial consolidation persuasive at this point in the Cases. To ameliorate some of the concerns
3
expressed by Plaintiff, the Court will enter identical scheduling orders in each of the three cases
by separate order. As discovery progresses, however, facts may develop weighing in favor of
pre-trial consolidation for the limited purpose of claim construction.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate the Cases for pre-trial
purposes is DENIED. The Court will reconsider whether to consolidate the Cases for purposes
of claim construction at a hearing to be held on November 2, 2012, with simultaneous
supplemental briefing due from all parties on or before October 26, 2012. The Court will enter
new scheduling orders with identical deadlines for each case shortly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
EVELYN J. FURSE
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?