Abiomed, Inc v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC (16-cv-10914).

Abiomed sued Maquet seeking a declaratory judgment that its Impella intracardiac heart pumps do not infringe Maquet’s patents, and Maquet counterclaimed for infringement. Abiomed, believing that Maquet’s parent company, Getinge AB, controls the litigation, moved to compel the deposition of Abraham Roani, Getinge’s General Counsel, on valuation, commercialization, validity and enfoceability of the patents-in-suit.  Maquet opposed, arguing that any information Roani has would be protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, and Maquet offered a non-attorney alternative witness.   Magistrate Judge Boal, noting the red flags that are raised by the noticing of deposition of the opposing party’s attorney, referred to the Shelton test adopted by the Eight Circuit, which requires there be no other means to obtain the sought information, the information be relevant and non-privileged, and the information be crucial to the development of the case.  She found that Abiomed had not met the first of these criteria, particularly given the proffer of a non-attorney witness, and denied the motion without prejudice.

Maquet fared better with its motion to compel.  Abiomed unsuccessfully sought to limit production to documents relating to features of the accused products that are alleged to meet the claim limitations, rather than technical information on all features of the accused products.  While Judge Boal compelled production of documents related to the accused products and not just the accused features, she sided with Abiomed that requests seeking all documents “related to” particular topics were overly broad, and limited these requests to the specific examples of types of documents contained in the requests.  Finally, Judge Boal required Abiomed to produce technical documents that predate the six-year limitation on damages period set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 286, because such documents go to infringement and not just to damages.

Performance Motion Devices, Inc. v. Ion Motion Control et al. (17-cv-11943).

Ion Motion Control, alleged to be the trade name for a suspended California corporation known as Basic Micro Products, Inc., was sued by computer hardware manufacturer Performance Motion Devices (“PMD”) for trademark infringement, cybersquatting, dilution and false designation of origin. PMD owns an incontestable registration in ION for computer hardware, and owns and operates the domain name <pmdcorp.com>.  PDM alleges that Basic Micro improperly selected the domain names <ionmc.com> and <ionmotioncontrol.com> and further that Basic Micro infringes the ION mark through the use of the logo:

Ion Motion Control

PDM seeks injunctive and monetary relief, as well as forfeiture/cancellation of the <ionmotioncontrol.com> and <ionmc.com> web domains.

Purdue Pharma LP et al. v. Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (17-cv-11923).

Purdue Pharma sued Collegium for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,522,919 and 9,073,933, which relate to oxycodone hydrochloride compositions and formulations. The suit is based on Collegium’s submission of a supplemental New Drug Application seeking approval for revised labeling for Collegium’s Xtampza® oxycodone extended release capsules.  Purdue has been pursuing claims against Xtampza® for some time now, beginning in March 2015, and most recently on September 21, 2017, as discussed here.

Malden Transportation, Inc. et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. (16-cv-12538).

Judge Gorton consolidated seven different antitrust actions against Uber for pretrial purposes. Each complaint asserted substantially similar claims and operative facts and involved the same defendants.  The main difference in the lawsuits related to alleged violations of local transportation ordinances, and the different cases generally grouped cab companies from individual cities or towns together – I previously commented on the Boston action here.  Judge Gorton reserved the question of whether to consolidate the cases for trial.  He also set a schedule for Uber’s motion to dismiss, indicating that a decision will issue on the request for dismissal by the end of the year.

The Atomic Café et al. v. Roy et al. (17-cv-11927).

John Mahoney and the Atomic Café accuse Kyle and Peter Roy and their companies Cold Brew Ventures, LLC, and Lean & Local, LLC, of trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and various other state law claims. The complaint alleges that the defendants, who operate under the names LeanBox (which delivers vending machines and provides vending services) and Grind (which provides coffee products that are offered through LeanBox’s vending services), induced Mahoney to enter into a joint venture to produce and market his cold brew products on  a larger scale.  The joint venture, Cold Brew Ventures, designed and configured a production facility largely at Mahoney’s direction.  The group agreed to the terms by which Mahoney would provide expertise to the venture – he was to receive a 25% equity stake in the facility and a fixed salary; yet once the facility became operational and his trade secret information had become known to them, the defendants refused to sign and unilaterally withdrew from the agreement.  The defendants are accused of using two registered trademarks covering ATOMIC COFFEE ROASTERS, which Mahoney had used in his three retail shops and a manufacturing facility that makes cold brew coffee, latte, and tea.  They are also accused of misappropriating proprietary information relating to Mahoney’s cold brew formulas and processes, as well as business information and contacts.

Avigilon Corporation et al. v. Canon, Inc. (17-cv-11922).

Avigilon filed suit against Canon, seeking declaratory judgment that its cameras and camera software do not infringe various Canon patents. Earlier this summer, Canon had sued Avigilon for patent infringement in the Eastern District of New York.  After Avigilon indicated it would move to transfer the case to Massachusetts, Canon filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.  Avigilon seeks declarations that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,580,451, 6,911,999, 7,0344,864, 7,321,453, and 9,191,630 are not infringed and are invalid and/or unenforceable.

It will be interesting to see whether the sufficiency of the pleading is challenged. The Iqbal/Twombly standard has been found not to apply to affirmative defenses, thus allowing generically pled affirmative defenses of non-infringement and invalidity to stand.  Earlier this summer, however, in the case of PetEdge, Inc. v. Marketfleet Sourcing, Inc. d/b/a Frontpet (16-cv-12562), Judge Saylor dismissed similar bare-bones non-infringement and invalidity pleadings when presented as counterclaims.

Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. at al. v. Covidien LP et al. (16-cv-12556).

Judge Sorokin denied Covidien’s motion for a preliminary injunction that sought to bar sales of Ethicon’s Enseal® X1 Large Jaw Device, a surgical tool that allows a surgeon to grasp a vessel between two jaws, apply energy to the jaws to for a seal, and cut the now-sealed vessel. Prior to the introduction of this device, Covidien was the market leader in such instruments that used bipolar (or radiofrequency) energy to seal the vessel.  Since its introduction in March 2017, the X1 Large Jaw has generated $7.8 million in revenue.  Covidien contends that the X1 Large Jaw infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,241,284, which claims vessel sealing devices having non-conductive stop members that maintain a constant distance between the jaw surfaces along the length of the jaws.

Because Ethicon raised a substantial question of non-infringement, Covidien was unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Of interest, while both parties sought to have the claim terms given their plain and ordinary meaning, the parties disagreed as to what that meaning was, with Ethicon urging a meaning that took its product out of infringement.  Judge Sorokin determined that “Ethicon’s proposed meanings are at least sufficiently persuasive to raise a substantial question regarding the ‘plain and ordinary’ meanings of the relevant terms.”  In addition, Judge Sorokin found that Covidien failed to show a nexus between the claimed elements of the device and the success of the X1 Large Jaw.  Ethicon provided evidence that sales of the X1 device were driven by factors, such as better ergonomics, ease of use, availability of sealing separately from cutting, and price, that were unrelated to the claimed elements.   Accordingly, Covidien did not show irreparable harm “resulting from the alleged infringement.”