Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00790/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00790-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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 

- 1 - 

JOINT MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT — No. C 02-790 SI 

[SEE SIGNATURE PAGE FOR ATTORNEY NAMES] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, 

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC., 

SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC., and 

SCHNEIDER (EUROPE) GmbH, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

JOHNSON & JOHNSON 

and CORDIS CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. C 02-790 SI 

STIPULATED MOTION OF THE 

PARTIES TO VACATE JUDGMENT 

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)) 

CORDIS CORPORATION, 

Counterclaim-Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, 

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC., 

SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC., and 

SCHNEIDER (EUROPE) GmbH, 

Counterclaim-Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 799 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 4 Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 800 Filed 11/13/07 Page 1 of 4
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 

JOINT MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT — No. C 02-790 SI 

- 2 -

Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants Boston Scientific Corporation, Boston Scientific 

SciMed, Inc., SciMed Life Systems, Inc., and Schneider (Europe) GmbH (collectively "Boston 

Scientific") and Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Cordis Corporation and Defendant Johnson & 

Johnson (collectively "Cordis"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and 

agree as follows: 

1. The Court entered judgment in this action on November 1, 2007. See Judgment, Nov. 

1, 2007 [Docket No. 795]. This judgment as entered adjudicates fewer than all of the parties' claims, 

defenses, rights and liabilities. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 

2. For example, the Court has not adjudicated Cordis's invalidity defense under 35 

U.S.C. § 103 pertaining to the issue of obviousness of the Kastenhofer patents, which the Court had 

previously indicated it would decide based upon the jury's responses to the special interrogatories 

and post-trial briefing received from the parties. Pretrial Hearing Tr. (Oct. 3, 2007) at 6:7-7:1. 

3. Similarly, the Court has not adjudicated Cordis's claim for damages and/or equitable 

relief for infringement of the Fontirroche patent. The Court specifically indicated that it was going 

to defer the issue of Cordis's damages until after trial. Trial Tr. 1313:23-1314:8. 

4. Furthermore, the Court's entry of judgment on November 1, 2007, should it stand, 

may trigger certain deadlines for filing renewed motions for JMOL and motions for new trial under 

Rules 50 and 59. Such deadlines cannot otherwise be extended under Rule 6. The parties believe 

that judicial and party resources would be conserved if the filing and briefing of such motions is put 

on the same schedule as post-trial briefing relating to the adjudication of the parties' remaining 

claims, defenses, rights and liabilities. 

5. It is therefore necessary and appropriate that the Court vacate the judgment that was 

entered on November 1, 2007, so that all of the parties' claims, defenses, rights and liabilities, as 

well as renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for new trial, can be fully 

adjudicated on a consistent schedule. See Villegas v. Princeton Farms, Inc., 893 F.2d 919, 924 (7th 

Cir. 1990) ("Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a district court may alter or amend a 

judgment, allowing the court 'to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and appellate courts the 

burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings.' . . . Vacation of a judgment is one form of altering a 

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 799 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 4 Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 800 Filed 11/13/07 Page 2 of 4
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 

JOINT MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT — No. C 02-790 SI 

- 3 -

judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)."); see also Ortiz v. Gaston County Dyeing Machine Co., 277 F.3d 

594, 597 n.1 (1st Cir. 2002) (similar holding). 

6. The parties have met and conferred on a briefing schedule that will cover all post-trial 

briefing that the parties believe will be needed, including briefing on obviousness, damages, and any 

other JMOL motions or motions for a new trial. The parties have agreed as follows: 

 Opening Briefs: December 14, 2007 

 Opposition Briefs: January 11, 2008 

 Reply Briefs: January 25, 2008 

 Hearing: February 15, 2008 (subject to the Court's convenience) 

 Now, therefore, based on the foregoing stipulation and agreement, the parties jointly move 

the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to vacate the judgment entered on November 1, 2007, and 

to enter the [proposed] Order set forth below, which includes the parties' agreed briefing schedule. 

DATED: November 9, 2007 

/s/Teague I. Donahey1 /s/ Gregory P. Teran

Teague I. Donahey (SBN 197531) 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

555 California Street 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 772-1200 

Facsimile: (415) 772-7400 

Attorneys for Defendants 

JOHNSON & JOHNSON and 

CORDIS CORPORATION 

Gregory P. Teran (Pro Hac Vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

60 State Street 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 

Telephone: (617) 526-6000 

Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Counterclaim 

Defendants BOSTON SCIENTIFIC 

CORPORATION, BOSTON SCIENTIFIC 

SCIMED, INC., SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, 

INC., and SCHNEIDER (EUROPE) GmbH 

 1

 Pursuant to General Order 45(X), I, Teague I. Donahey, hereby certify that concurrence in the 

filing of this document has been obtained from Gregory P. Teran. 

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 799 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 4 Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 800 Filed 11/13/07 Page 3 of 4
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 

JOINT MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT — No. C 02-790 SI 

- 4 -

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Having received and reviewed the Stipulated Motion of the Parties to Vacate Judgment, and 

good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The judgment entered in this action on November 1, 2007 [Docket No. 795] is hereby 

VACATED. 

 2. The parties shall submit their post-trial briefing on all of the parties' remaining 

claims, defenses, rights and liabilities, including without limitation the issues of the obviousness of 

the Kastenhofer patents and Cordis's damages and/or equitable relief for infringement of the 

Fontirroche patents, and any other post-trial JMOL motions or motions for a new trial, in accordance 

with the following briefing schedule: 

 Opening Briefs: December 14, 2007 

 Opposition Briefs: January 11, 2008 

 Reply Briefs: January 25, 2008 

 Hearing: February 15, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. 

DATED: November ___, 2006 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 799 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 4 Case 3:02-cv-00790-SI Document 800 Filed 11/13/07 Page 4 of 4