Case ID: f-appx_520/html/0579-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PACESETTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, DBA St. Jude Medical CRMD, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. SURMODICS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.
    No. 12-55564.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 8, 2013.
    Filed May 23, 2013.
    James Anthony Gale, Esquire, Feldman Gale, PA, Miami, FL, Todd Malynn, Feld-man Gale, PA, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee.
    Jacob M. Holdreith, Jamie R. Kurtz, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, David Martinez, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.
    Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

In this diversity action arising under Minnesota law, SurModics, Inc. appeals the district court’s summary judgment order denying its claims for additional royalties under its licensing agreement with Pacesetter, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo a district court’s summary judgment. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm. Our reasoning tracks that of the district court.

The parties are familiar with the facts and prior proceedings. Remarkably, both parties urge us to conclude that the language of the licensing agreement is unambiguous as to whether SurModics was entitled to royalties on products manufactured before, but sold after, the agreement’s expired. Paragraph five states that “royalties” must be paid “for each quarter of each calendar year during the term of [the] Agreement.” “Term” is defined by paragraph eight to “extend ... until expiration of the last-to-expire patent ... that covers that product.” Attachment B2 provides that quarterly royalties are based on the greater of a specified minimum or a percentage of net sales. We agree with the district court that the contract’s language limits Pacesetter’s obligation to pay royalties to those products it sold during the term of the agreement. No other obligation to pay exists.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.