Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04072/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04072-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Boston Scientific Corporation et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

Micrus Corporation,

Defendant.

 /

NO. C 04-04072 JW 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

I. INTRODUCTION 

Boston Scientific Corporation and Target Therapeutics, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) bring suit against

Micrus Corporation (“Defendant”) for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Presently before

the Court is Micrus’ motion to stay proceedings. The motion was discussed during a case

management conference held on March 20, 2006. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

DENIES the motion. 

II. BACKGROUND

On September 27, 2004, Plaintiffs Boston Scientific and Target filed suit against Defendant

Micrus alleging the infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,010,498 (“the ‘498 patent”) and U.S. Patent

No. 5,895,385 (“the ‘385 patent”). Both are entitled “Endovascular electrolytically detachable wire

and tip for the formation of thrombus in arteries, veins, aneurysms, vascular malformations and

arteriovenous fistulas.” The ‘498 patent claims the usage of radioopaque markers on the wire and on

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 59 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

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

1

Boston Scientific Corp. et al. v. Cordis Corp., Case No. C02-01474 JW

2

The ‘498 patent possesses a total of twelve claims. Claims 1 and 7 are independent. Claims

2 through 6 are dependent on Claim 1, while Claims 8 through 12 are dependent on Claim 7. 

3

The ‘385 patent possesses a total of forty-seven claims. Fourteen are independent. Thirtythree are dependent. The USPTO confirmed only one independent claim.

2

the catheter to determine whether the tip has been fully inserted into the vascular cavity. The tip is

properly placed when the marker(s) on the wire aligns with the marker(s) on the catheter. The ‘385

patent claims the method of inserting a wire into a vascular cavity to stem blood flow. After

insertion, the tip of the wire is detached and left within the vascular cavity thereby stemming blood

flow. The tip is capable of being folded upon itself multiple times. This wire is relaxed and has no

substantial memory of its predisposed shape. To facilitate the detachment of the tip, one portion of

the wire is insulated while the rest is left exposed to permit electrolysis. Current then flows through

the wire and electrolyzes the wire, thereby detaching the tip and leaving it behind to stem blood

flow. 

On October 4, 2004, in a related action1

, third party Cordis Corporation requested a

reexamination of the ‘498 and ‘385 patents with the United States Patent and Trademark Office

(“USPTO”). The USPTO agreed to reexamine the patents. Thereafter, the Court stayed the

proceedings pending the reexamination. The stay, however, was set to expire on February 23, 2006.

Thus far, the USPTO has confirmed all twelve claims of the ‘498 patent2

 along with eleven

claims of the ‘385 patent3

. (Decl.of R.Schwillinski, Exhibit D, E.) However, the USPTO rejected

thirty-two claims of the ‘385 patent as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,122,136 (“the ‘136 patent”)

and four claims of the ‘385 patent as obvious in light of the ‘136 patent coupled with another

reference. (Decl.of R.Schwillinski, Exhibit E.) 

Defendant now moves to continue the stay pending the final conclusion of the reexam. 

Defendants contend that the stay should continue because the case is in its infancy, discovery has not

begun nor has a trial date been set. (Def. Rep. at 1.) Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs would not

be unduly prejudiced by the delay and that the case would move more efficiently by avoiding

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 59 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

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

4

The Regents of the University of California own the patents. Plaintiffs are licensees.

3

duplicative discovery given the similarities between the two patents-in-suit. 

 Plaintiffs, however, contend that the reexam is essentially finished because the ‘498 patent

claims were confirmed while the invalidated ‘385 patent claims resulted from mere “clerical error.” 

(Plaintiffs’ Opp. at 3.) Plaintiffs argue that the prior art used to invalidate various ‘385 patent

claims, the ‘136 patent, mistakenly failed to make references to certain intervening co-pending

applications between the ‘136 and the ‘385 patents. Id. Plaintiffs characterize this omission as a

“clerical error.” Id. They contend that the ‘136 patent will no longer be used as invalidating prior

art once this omission is corrected and that the patentee4

 has already begun proceedings to correct it. 

Id. Plaintiffs believe the defect will be remedied and the ‘385 patent will be reinstated. (Plaintiffs’

Opp. at 4.) Plaintiffs also argue that notwithstanding the ‘385 patent, litigation should at least

proceed with the ‘498 patent because any further delay would harm them. Id. 

III. STANDARDS

“There is a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay proceedings pending the

outcome of reexamination proceedings.” ASCII Corp. v. STD Entertainment USA, Inc., 844 F.

Supp. 1378, 1381 (N.D. Cal. 1994). District courts have broad discretion in determining these

motions. Id; Ethicon, Inc. v. Quiqq, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In ruling on a motion

to stay, courts consider (1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical

disadvantage to the non-moving party, (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and

trial of the case, and (3) whether discovery is complete or a trial date has been set. Gunthy-Renker

Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., No. CV 97-7681, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16553 at *5,

48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1058 (C.D. Cal. July 15, 1998). 

IV. DISCUSSION

In its motion, Defendant argues that the Gunthy-Renker factors favor a stay. First,

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs would not be unduly prejudiced by further delay. Second, it

argues that a stay would simplify the issues in question by resolving which patent claims are valid. 

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 59 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

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 4

Defendant contends this threshold inquiry of patent validity should be determined before litigation

proceeds. Third, Defendant argues that staying proceedings is the prudent choice because the case is

still in its infancy - discovery has not begun nor has a trial date been set.

The Court has carefully considered Defendant’s arguments. However, the Court sees no

reason to stay this case any further. A substantial amount of work can be accomplished prior to the

final resolution of the USPTO reexam. The Court recognizes that the patents-in-suit share mutual

inventors, identical specifications, and similar concepts, which weigh in favor of proceeding with

coordinated and parallel discovery for the patents-in-suit. The Court is confident, however, that the

parties are capable of managing discovery in a manner that will avoid duplication and waste. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings. The

stay is lifted as to all patent claims confirmed by the USPTO. Plaintiffs are instructed to notify this

Court and Defendant when the USPTO proceedings are completed. 

Dated: March 21, 2006

04cv4072stay

 /s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 59 Filed 03/21/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Amanda Marie Kessel akessel@goodwinprocter.com

David Thomas Pollock david.pollock@weil.com

Douglas E. Lumish doug.lumish@weil.com

J. Anthony Downs jdowns@goodwinprocter.com

Julie Lynn Fieber jfieber@flk.com

Michael Francis Kelleher mkelleher@flk.com

Paul F. Ware pware@goodwinprocter.com

Roland Schwillinski rschwillinski@goodwinprocter.com

Dated: March 21, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:_/s/JW Chambers________

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 59 Filed 03/21/06 Page 5 of 5