Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03817/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03817-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 COOK INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants, /

No. C 03-03817 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON MARCH 28, 2008 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, with the reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf. 

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

explain their reliance on such authority. 

The Court tentatively DENIES the motion for leave to file an amended answer to

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. 

Case 3:03-cv-03817-JSW Document 701 Filed 03/26/08 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

The parties each shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. When did Gore first learn of the facts alleged in paragraphs 48-53 and paragraphs 55-65

of its Amended Counterclaim?

2. What precluded Gore from previously asserting the inequitable conduct defense on

information and belief? What “new” facts does Gore rely on in asserting the inequitable

conduct defense at this stage in the litigation?

3. Gore notes that the Federal Circuit cautioned litigants with respect to pleading an

inequitable conduct defense in Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Dayco Corp., 849 F.2d 1418,

1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Plaintiffs have used the fact that Gore has not asserted the

defense to instruct its witnesses not to answer questions pertaining to the defense. How

would Plaintiffs propose Gore obtain the necessary discovery?

4. If the Court granted the motion, what additional discovery is needed and how long

would it take to complete?

5. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address with respect to this motion?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03817-JSW Document 701 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 2