Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00790/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00790-18/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,

et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 02-00790 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On March 14, 2007, this Court issued an order denying defendants’ motion for partial summary

judgment. Defendants now move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-9(b)(3). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion. 

Leave to file a motion for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3)

where a party shows “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.” Civ L. R. 7-9(b)(3).

 Defendants seek reconsideration of this Court’s ruling that an invention can be reduced to

practice absent experimentation in the United States if a product that embodies the invention was

successfully reduced to practice abroad and is imported into this country. See March 14, 2007 Order

at 11. Brunswick v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 532 (1995), is the only case cited by defendants in their

Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration that was before the Court at the time of its

summary adjudication decision. See Docket No. 486, Reply at 10. Defendants argue that Brunswick

stands for the proposition that a product embodying a claim that is tested abroad and imported into the

United States must also be tested in the United States before it is successfully reduced to practice for

priority purposes. Mot. at 2. In making its decision, this Court fully considered Brunswick and the issue

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 511 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 2
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

to which it relates. Therefore, defendants’ motion is DENIED.

Even if the Court were to consider defendants’ argument afresh, it would still reach the same

conclusion it made in its March order regarding this issue. First, Brunswick is fully distinguishable.

The priority issue in Brunswick related to the invention’s date of conception, not its actual reduction to

practice. See Brunswick, 34 Fed. Cl. at 584-86. Second, to bolster its position, defendants cite just one

Federal Circuit case, Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is particularly

instructive that a number of district courts have cited Holmwood for the exact opposite position that

defendants here assert. See Maxwell v. K mart Corp, 880 F. Supp. 1323, 1334 (D. Minn. 1995) (“[i]t

is well established that the introduction of a completed invention into the United States may be relied

upon for priority purposes even though the invention was conceived and reduced to practice abroad”)

(citing Holmwood, 948 F.2d at 1238); see also Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite, S.P.A. v.

Lonza, LTD, 62 F. Supp. 2d 70, 85 (D.D.C. 1999) (“an invention that is conceived and reduced to

practice in a foreign country may claim priority of invention if the completed product was introduced

in the United States prior to the introduction of the prior art) (citing Holmwood, 948 F.2d at 1238). The

remainder of defendants’ cited cases are ambiguous as to the narrow proposition defendants request the

Court to adopt. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration (Docket No. 500). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 511 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 2