Medtronic Xomed, Inc. v. Gyrus ENT LLC

Medtronic Xomed, Inc. v. Gyrus ENT LLC

Opinion

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Compel (1) Production of a Document Relied on by Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Designee and (2) Continuation of the Deposition after the Production (Doc. 137) filed February 15, 2006. Plaintiff filed a Response and Opposition to Defendant's [*2]  Fourth Motion to Compel on March 6, 2006 (Doc. 164). Accordingly, the matter is ripe for judicial review.

I. Background

This matter is a patent infringement action where, among other things, Plaintiff, Medtronic Xomed, Inc., alleges that certain of Defendant's microdebrider products, when used during the performance of sinus surgery, infringe upon Plaintiff's United States Patent No. 6, 293, 957 (the "957 Patent"). Defendant denies any infringement and counterclaims against Plaintiff asking the Court to declare Plaintiff's 957 Patent invalid and unenforceable. As is frequently the case in patent disputes, one of the issues in this controversy centers around prior art. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to disclose all material prior art known to Plaintiff and its attorneys to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO") and therefore, the 957 Patent is invalid and unenforceable.

The parties have engaged in extensive discovery and much of the discovery has revolved around the issue of prior art. In fact, Defendant previously filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to designate a corporate representative to testify on various specific topics, one [*3]  of which focused on "prior art relevant to the validity / invalidity of the 957 Patent." (Doc. 89). Despite Plaintiff's objection that such information would be more appropriately addressed through expert testimony, the Court granted Defendant's motion to compel in part and opined that the "factual evidence requested [with respect to prior art] is discoverable through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition." (Doc. 124).

On January 20, 2006, Defendant deposed Plaintiff's corporate designee, Mr. Fletcher, during a FRCP 30(b)(6) Court-compelled deposition. During the deposition, Defendant asked Mr. Fletcher various questions relating to prior art, including what documents he had reviewed. (Doc. 137, Ex. 4, p. 7). Mr. Fletcher responded that he reviewed various documents, including the document now at issue (the "contested document"). ¹ Id. When Defendant requested Plaintiff produce the contested document, Plaintiff objected asserting the work product doctrine.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.