Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01066/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01066-18/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDTRONIC VASCULAR INC.,

et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 06-1066 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO INTERVENE

ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR 

SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

The motion of Boston Scientific Corporation (“BSC”) to intervene as counter-claimant

came on for hearing on July 25, 2007. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel Leo L.

Lam and Jeffrey N. Cotakos, and defendants (“Abbott”) appeared through their counsel

Robert F. McCauley. BSC appeared through its counsel Elizabeth A. Brown and Frank

Scherkenbach. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and considered the

arguments of counsel and the relevant legal authority, and for good cause appearing, the

court hereby rules as follows for the reasons stated at the hearing.

Intervention as a matter of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) is appropriate when (1)

the applicant’s motion is timely; (2) the applicant claims a significantly protectable interest

relating to the property or transaction subject to the action; (3) disposition of the action may

impair or impede protection of the interest; and (4) the current parties do not adequately

represent the interests of the applicant. Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1484 (9th Cir.

1993). Permissive intervention, governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), “requires (1) an

independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law

and fact between the movant's claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Indus. v.

Case 4:06-cv-01066-PJH Document 159 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992).

First, it appears that a party seeking to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) need

not possess constitutional Article III standing in this circuit, although that party must show

that he or she has a protectable interest in the outcome of the litigation. See Yniguez v.

Arizona, 939 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. $129,374 in United States

Currency, 769 F.2d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1985). In any event, even if standing were required,

the court finds that the “facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a

substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient

immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment." MedImmune,

Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 764, 771 (2007). BSC has been actively promoting the

medical device at issue (the Promus stent) in the United States, FDA approval is expected

in early or mid-2008, Abbott is already manufacturing that stent for BSC in the United

States, BSC is already selling that stent in Europe, and plaintiffs have accused that stent in

this patent infringement action.

BSC therefore has a significant protectable interest under Rule 24(a) which would be

impaired by disposition of the action. BSC’s motion is timely, as discovery is in its early

stages, the claim construction hearing has not yet taken place, and dispositive motions

have not yet been filed. Nor does Abbott, BSC’s competitor, adequately represent BSC’s

interests. BSC may therefore intervene as a matter of right. In the alternative, even if BSC

could not intervene as a matter of right, permissive intervention is proper, as there is an

independent ground for jurisdiction, BSC moved in a timely manner, and there is a common

question of law and fact between BSC's claim or defense and the main action.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:06-cv-01066-PJH Document 159 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

BSC’s motion to intervene is therefore GRANTED as stated on the record. All

parties shall meet and confer as to any enlargement of the number of depositions that may

be needed and/or any adjustments to time that may be necessary, and shall submit a

stipulation and proposed order regarding the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-01066-PJH Document 159 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 3