Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02559/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02559-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDTRONIC, INC. et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

KYPHON, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-2559 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO DEEM THIS ACTION

“FIRST-FILED” AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

On June 23, 2006, the Court issued an order (Docket No. 58) regarding plaintiffs’ motion to

deem this action “first-filed” and defendant’s motion to dismiss, deferring ruling on the parties’ motions

until the District Court for the Western District of Tennessee resolves: (1) the issue of whether this

action or Sandhu v. Medtronic, C 05-2863-MI V (W.D. Tenn.), is the “first-filed,” and (2) the related

issue of whether Kyphon’s patent infringement claims in Sandhu relate back to the November 23, 2005

filing date of the original complaint in Sandhu.

On November 7, 2006, the Sandhu court issued an order (Docket No. 207) finding that the

Sandhu action is “first-filed,” and that Kyphon’s amended complaint in that case (including the new

patent infringement claims) relates back to the original complaint. The Sandhu court also enjoined

Medtronic from prosecuting duplicative declaratory judgment claims in this Court.

Under the principle of federal comity, this Court “has discretion to transfer, stay, or dismiss” an

action whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal court.” CedarsSinai Medical Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 1997). In light of the Tennessee court’s

ruling, therefore, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to deem this action “first-filed” and DISMISSES

Case 3:06-cv-02559-SI Document 111 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claims. (Docket Nos. 22, 26).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02559-SI Document 111 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 2