Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01512/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01512-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA,

INC., et al.,

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants,

CASE NO. 08 CV 1512 MMA (MDD)

ORDER RE:

MEDTRONIC’S MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF

LAW, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

NEW TRIAL;

[Doc. No. 406]

NUVASIVE’S MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF

LAW, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

NEW TRIAL; 

[Doc. No. 407]

WARSAW’S MOTION FOR

SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES;

[Doc. No. 408]

WARSAW’S MOTION FOR

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

[Doc. No. 409]

vs.

NUVASIVE, INC.,

Defendant and Counterclaimant

/ / /

- 1 - 08cv1512

Case 3:08-cv-01512-CAB-MDD Document 460 Filed 01/26/12 Page 1 of 2
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

On Thursday, January 26, 2012, four post-trial matters came before the Court for hearing:

(1) Medtronic’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, new trial [Doc. No.

406]; (2) NuVasive’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, new trial [Doc.

No. 407]; (3) Warsaw’s motion for supplemental damages [Doc. No. 408]; and (4) Warsaw’s

motion for permanent injunction [Doc. No. 409]. Prior to the hearing, the Court issued tentative

rulings indicating it was inclined to deny each of the four motions. [Doc. No. 458.] For the

reasons set forth on the record during the January 26 hearing, the Court AFFIRMS its tentative

rulings.

With respect to the additional damages that will be set by the Court, the parties are

instructed to provide supplemental briefing on the following issues: (i) the ongoing royalties that

will be imposed for infringing sales made after the date of the jury’s verdict, September 20, 2011;

and (ii) an appropriate rate of prejudgment interest.1

 Each party shall submit a single opening

brief, not to exceed 25 pages, on or before February 10, 2012. Each party shall submit a single

opposition brief, not to exceed 25 pages, on or before February 24, 2012. No reply briefs shall be

filed. Upon review of the parties submissions, the Court will set a hearing if necessary.

Lastly, the Court hereby sets a scheduling conference for February 27, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.

to discuss any issues regarding the entry of a Rule 54(b) final judgment as to Phase I of this action. 

The parties need not submit briefing on this issue prior to the scheduling conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 26, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

1

 As stated at the hearing, the Court finds that the jury did not include prejudgment interest in

its damages calculations.

- 2 - 08cv1512

Case 3:08-cv-01512-CAB-MDD Document 460 Filed 01/26/12 Page 2 of 2