Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-mc-80094/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-mc-80094-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re Application of AIS GMBH AACHEN 

INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS & ABIOMED 

EUROPE GMBH, Petitioners, For an Order 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Take 

Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, 

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, of Respondent Thoratec, LLC

Case No. 5:16-mc-80094-HRL 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

FOR DISCOVERY IN AID OF 

FOREIGN LITIGATION PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, AIS GmbH Aachen Innovative Solutions and Abiomed 

Europe GmbH (collectively, petitioners), move for leave to conduct discovery of Thoratec, LLC 

(Thoratec) in aid of patent litigation pending in Germany. Thoratec, the accused infringer in the 

German actions, protests that the petitioners did not meet-and-confer before submitting the present 

application. However, petitioners correctly note that § 1782 applications typically are brought on 

an ex parte basis, and that the discovery target will then be given adequate notice of any discovery 

and have the opportunity to either participate in the discovery or to move to quash it.

Upon consideration of the application and the supporting papers, the court finds that the 

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 are satisfied. Petitioners’ application therefore is granted, and 

they may serve their subpoena for documents and testimony. To the extent there are any 

confidentiality concerns with respect to the requested discovery, this court finds that such concerns 

Case 5:16-mc-80094-EJD Document 16 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

would be sufficiently addressed by a protective order, such as the one proposed by petitioners. 

However, the court will give the parties an opportunity to meet-and-confer and encourages them to 

attempt to agree on the terms of such an order. Additionally, the instant order is without prejudice 

to Thoratec to seek to quash the subpoena; but, in the event any discovery disputes arise, the 

parties shall comply with the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes, which 

(among other things) requires the submission of a joint discovery letter brief, rather than a noticed 

motion.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-mc-80094-EJD Document 16 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

5:16-mc-80094-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Andrew Radsch andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com, CourtAlert@RopesGray.com, 

drago.gregov@ropesgray.com, james.nowell@ropesgray.com

Rebecca Rose Carrizosa rebecca.carrizosa@ropesgray.com, a.j.peak@ropesgray.com, 

courtalert@ropesgray.com

Richard T. McCaulley , Jr Richard.McCaulley@ropesgray.com

Roger J. Chin roger.chin@lw.com, #sfdocket@lw.com

Terrence J.P. Kearney terry.kearney@lw.com

Case 5:16-mc-80094-EJD Document 16 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 3