# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 34 34

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

And ov er Heal th care , Inc

.,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

,

v.

3M Co m pa ny,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 22 , 20 15
Fil ed : M arch 31 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

And ov er Heal th care , In c., ap pe al s an or d e r o f th e di st ric t co ur t de nyin g 1

And ov er’s pe ti ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 17 82 fo r di sc ov ery to b e u se d in a pa te nt

The Hon or ab l e Su sa n Ri ch ard Nels on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.in fri ng em en t s ui t i n Ger m an y . W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n, an d we t he refo re af fir m th e o rd er.

I.

And ov er Heal th care , In c., an d 3M Co mp a n y b ot h m ak e co he si ve , la te x- free

ba nd ag es

. And ov er ho ld s pa te nt s on it s ba nd ag es in bo th th e Uni te d St at es an d

Euro pe

. In 20 13

, And ov er fil ed a pa te nt -in f r in ge m en t su it in th e Dis tri ct of

Dela ware, al le gi ng th at 3M ha d in fri ng e d A n d ov er’s pa te nt wit h it s li ne of Co ba n
ba nd ag es

. And ov er al so su ed 3M in Germ an y , as se rti ng th at 3M vi ol at ed And ov er’s

rel at ed Euro pe an pa te nt

. Thi s ap pe al co nc ern s an effo rt to di sc ov er in fo rm at io n fo r

us e in th e Germ an su it

.

C l a i m on e of And ov er’s Euro pe an pa te nt de sc rib es “ a co he si ve pr od u c t

co m pr is in g

. . . an i nh eren tl y

cry st al li ne ela st om er an d a t l eas t o ne ta ck ifyin g ag en t

in an am ou nt effe ct iv e to di sr up t t h e crystal li ne st ru ct ur e of th e el as to m er an d

m ai nt ai n th e el as to m er in a pa rti al po lycry st al li ne st at e.” In su pp or t of it s de fen se in

th e Germ an cas e, 3M su bm it te d a n e x p e r t rep or t st at in g th at 3M ’s raw “ el as to m er

m at eri al s are not pr es en t in a crystal li ne

. . . st at e.” The rep or t fu rth er ob se rv ed th at

“ [s ]inc e no crystal li ni ty co ul d be de te ct ed in th e el as to m er rig ht fro m th e be gi nn in g,

it can th eref

or e no t be di sr up te d by sp eci fic al ly ad di ng ta ck ifi ers .” 3M arg ue d be fo re

th e Germ an co ur t th at be cau se it s po lychl or op ren e el as to m er m at eri al is no t crystal li ne or m ai nt ai ne d in a pa rti al po lycry st al li ne st at e, it s pr od uc ts di d no t in fri ng e
And ov er’s Eur op ean pa te nt

.

And ov er be li ev es th at 3M ’s te st res ul ts can no t be co rrec t an d se ek s to co nd uc t

it s own te st in g on 3M ’s p ol y ch lo ro pr en e an d 3M ’s p ol y ch lo ro pr en e an d t ack ifyin g

ag en t m ix tu re. 3M ha s r e fu se d, ho wev er, to rev eal to And ov er it s sp eci fic type of

po lychl or op ren e or it s fo rm ul a fo r m ak in g th e ba nd ag es

. 3M as se rts th at th is

in fo rm at io n i m

pl ic at es hi gh ly sen si ti ve tra de sec ret s.

-2

-3M di d di sc lo se th e di sp ut ed in fo rm at io n, un de r a pr o te ct iv e or de r, in th e

D e l a w a re in fri ng em en t su it

. And ov er fir st so ug ht pe rm is si on fro m th e Dela war e

co ur t to us e th e in fo rm at io n in th e pa ral le l Germ an pr oc eed in g. The Dela ware co ur t

de ni ed And ov er’s req ue st

, ci ti ng th e se ns it iv it y of th e in fo rm atio n an d th e av ai la bi li ty

of ot he r m ech an is m s in Germ an y an d in th e Uni te d St at es to ob ta in th e in fo rm at io n.
And ov er th en so ug ht th e sa m e di sc ov er y fro m th e Germ an co ur t, bu t th e Germ an

co ur t ha s no t y et ru le d on th e req ue st

. W hi le pu rs ui ng th es e di sc ov e r y req ue st s,
And ov er al so co nd uc te d te st in g o n 3M ’s co m m erci al ly av ai la bl e ba nd ag es , bu t

And ov er as se rts th at th es e te st s on th e fin al pr od uc t a r e i n su ffi ci en t to m ak e th e

ne ces sa ry co m pa ris on wit h 3 M’s te st res ul ts on it s o wn ra w m at eri al s.

In a th ird at te m

pt to o b t a in th e de si red in fo rm at io n fo r us e in Germ an y , An d o ve r pe ti ti on ed th e di st ric t co ur t in Mi nn es ot a fo r di sc ov ery un de r 28 U.S.C.
§ 1 78 2. An do ve r m ad e two sp eci fic req ue st s. Fi rs t, An do ve r so ug ht “ [d ]ocu m en ts

su ffi ci en t to sh ow th e in gr ed ie nt s in

, fo rm ul at io n of

, an d m et ho d of mak in g th e

pr od uc ts accu se d of in fri ng em en t in Germ an y .” Seco nd

, And ov er req ue st ed

“ [d ]ocu m en ts refe r e n c in g th e crystal li zat io n or crystal li ni ty pr op ert ie s of th e

po lychl or op ren e us ed in th e pr od uc ts accu se d of in fri ng em en t.” The d i st ric t co ur t,

affi rm in g th e or de r of a m ag is tra te jud ge , de ni ed And ov er’s pe ti ti on fo r d i s co ve ry

. And ov er ap pe al s, an d we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.

Gov ’t o f Gh an a v . Pro Ene rg

y S er vs ., LLC , 67 7 F .3d 34 0, 3 43 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

II.

Sect io n 17 82 pr ov id es th at a di st ric t co ur t “ m ay or de r [a pe rs on ]

. . . to pr od uc e

a do cu m en t or ot he r th in g fo r us e in a pr oc eed in g in a f o r e i gn or in te rn at io na l

tri bu na l.” 28 U.S.C. § 17 82 (a). The di st ric t co ur t’s au th or it y to or de r pr od uc ti on is

no t li m it ed “ to m at eri al s th at co ul d be di sc ov ered in th e fo re i gn juri sd ic ti on if th e

m at eri al s were lo cat ed th ere.” In te l Co rp

. v. Adv an ced Mic ro Devi ces
, In c. , 54 2 U.S.

24 1, 26 0 (2 00 4)

. The Su pr em e Co u r t ha s is su ed no su pe rv is or y ru le s go ve rn in g

-3

-§ 17 82 (a), bu t ha s no te d se ve ral fact or s th at be ar co ns id erat i o n i n mak in g th e

de te rm in at io n wh et he r to gra nt an ap pl ic at io n. Id . at 2 64 -6 5.

The di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered And ov er’s pe ti ti on in li gh t of th e co ns id erat io ns
id en ti fie d by th e Su pr em e Co ur t an d co nc lu de d th at th ree co ns id erat io ns weig he d

ag ai ns t a n or de r of pr od uc ti on

. And ov er di sp ut es th e di st ric t co ur t’s an al y si s an d

as se rts th at all of t he pe rti ne nt fact or s fa vo r an ord er o f pr od uc ti on

.

The di st ric t co ur t fir st ob se rv ed th at 3M is a pa rty t o t h e p a r a ll el Germ an

i n f r i ng em en t su it an d th at th e Germ an co ur t ha d sa id it wou ld gr an t And ov er’s

di sc ov ery req ue st if ne ces sa ry to res ol ve th e cas e. The di st ric t co ur t’s vi ew th at th is

fact or weig he d ag ai ns t th e pe ti ti on is well gr ou nd ed in th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s gu id an ce

fro m In te l : “ [W] he n th e pe rs on fro m who m di sc ov ery is so ug ht is a pa rti ci pa nt in th e

fo rei gn pro ceed in g . . . , th e ne ed fo r § 17 82 (a) a id ge ne ral ly is n ot as a pp aren t as it

or di na ril y is whe n ev id en ce is so ug ht fro m a no np art ic ip an t i n t h e matt er ari si ng
ab ro ad

. A fo re ig n tr ib un al ha s ju ri sd ic ti on ov er th os e ap pe ar in g bef

or e it

, an d can

it se lf or de r t he m to pr od uc e evi de nc e .” Id . at 2 64 (em ph as is ad de d)

.

And ov er co nt en ds th at whe th er th e Germ an co ur t w i l l o r d er di sc ov ery is

u n c e r t a i n , es pe ci al ly i f th e st an da rd is on e of “ ne ces si ty,” s o 3M ’s s ta tu s as a pa rty

in th e Germ an li ti ga ti on sh ou ld no t weig h ag ai ns t a n or de r fo r di sc ov ery un de r § 17 82 (a). W e se e no fla w in th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pr oa ch

. The co ur t’s fin di ng th at

th e Germ an co ur t wil l or de r di sc ov e ry fro m 3M if ne ces sa ry was ba se d on a
de cl arat io n of Germ an co un se l fo r 3M

, an d th e pr es en ce of co nf li ct in g ev id en ce do es

no t m ak e th e fin di ng cl earl y erro ne ou s. It was reas on ab le on th is reco rd fo r th e
di st ric t co ur t to pr es ume t h a t th e Germ an co ur t wil l ex am in e fir st whe th er th e cas e

can b e res ol ve d wit ho ut co m pe ll in g di sc ov ery of se ns it iv e tra de se cret s, bu t wil l

ex erci se juri sd ic ti on to ord er d is cl os ur e if th e in fo rm at io n i s es se nt ia l t o m ak in g an

in fo rm ed de ci si on

. Tha t th is ap pr oa ch is m or e ci rcu m sp ect th an Am eri can di sc ov ery
do es no t di ct at e an or de r fo r di sc ov ery un de r § 17 82 (a). W he n a fo rei gn co ur t “ can

-4

-it se lf or de r” pr od uc ti on , In te l te a c h e s t h at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y m ay de em th e

ne ed for § 1 78 2( a) d is co ve ry

les s “ ap pa ren t.” Id

.

The di st ric t co ur t al so d e t erm in ed th at th e “ hi gh ly se ns it iv e na tu re of th e

req ue st ed di sc ov ery, an d th e la ck of cert ai n t y th at it s co nf id en ti al it y can be

m ai nt ai ne d,” weig he d he av il y ag ai ns t or de rin g di sc ov ery. Thi s reas on in g al ig ns wit h

th e Co ur t’s o bs erv at io n i n In te l th at “ un du ly i nt ru si ve or bu rd en so m e req ue st s m ay
be reject ed or tri m

m ed .” Id

. at 26 5. The di st ric t co ur t ci te d ev id en ce th at di sc lo su re

of 3M ’s tra de se cret s, ev en if li m it ed to on e in gr ed ie nt of th e di sp ut ed pr od uc t, wou ld

irr ep arab ly harm th e co m pa ny. The co ur t als o re li ed on a de cl arat io n fr om Germ an

co un se l th at th ere is no fir m pr oc ed ur e in Germ an y to pr ev en t di sc lo su re to in -h ou se

co un se l fo r And ov er, th at in te res te d th ird pa rti es m ay ha ve acce ss to th e fu ll cas e fil e,

an d th at Germ an co ur ts do no t freq ue nt ly gr a n t r e qu es ts to ex cl ud e co nf id en ti al

in fo rm at io n fro m th ei r de ci si on s. And ov er su gg es t s t h a t a pr ot ect iv e or de r co ul d

al le vi at e th es e co nc ern s, bu t an y or de r wou ld ha ve to pe rm it di sc lo su re to th e Germ an

co ur t at a m in im

um , th us le a vi ng 3M ’s tra de se cret s at th e m ercy of Germ an

pr oc ed ur es th at are un fam il ia r to th is co ur t. Esp eci al ly whe n 3 M is a pa rty to th e

Germ a n p r o ceed in g, whe re th e Germ an co ur t can de te rm in e th e ne ed fo r di sc ov ery

of th e tra de se cret s an d it s ab il it y to pr ot ect th em , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y weig he d

th e se ns it iv e n at ur e o f th e in fo rm at io n s ou gh t ag ai ns t an ord er fo r di sc ov ery.

As a th ird fact or co un se li ng ag ai ns t t h e d i s c ov ery, th e di st ric t co ur t ci te d

And ov er’s ap pa

re nt at te m pt to av oi d or pr eem

pt an un fav or ab le de ci si on on di sc ov ery by th e Germ an co ur t. W hi le th e Su pr em e Co ur t in In te l rejec t e d a fo rei gn
di sc ov erab il it y req ui rem en t, th e Co ur t al lo wed th at co n s id erat io ns of co m it y m ay

gu id e th e ex erci se of d is cret io n in a pa rti cu la r cas e. Id . at 2 61 . And ov er, h owe ve r,
di sp ut es th e di st ric t co ur t’s ch arac te riz at io n of it s in te n t

. Th e co m pa ny

m ai nt ai ns —ci ti ng an un co nt rad ic te d de cl arat io n of co un se l th at th e ev id en ce so ug ht

wou ld be “ fu ll y

ad m is si bl e” in Germ an y

—t ha t Germ an co ur ts are v ery rece pt iv e to

th e u se of i nf

or m at io n o bt ai ne d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s.

-5

-We a r e no t co nv in ced th at a di sc ov ery or de r wou ld be un welc om e by th e

Germ an co ur t or wou ld im pl ic at e th e S u p r e m e Co ur t’s co nc ern ab ou t effo rts to

“ ci rcu m ve nt fo rei gn pr oo f-g at he rin g res tri ct io ns ” of th e type th at pr oh ib it th e us e of

cert ai n m at eri al s. In te l

, 54 2 U.S. at 26 5; se e Mees v. Bui te r , 79 3 F.3 d 29 1, 30 3 n.2 0
(2 d C ir. 2 01 5) . But ev en if th es e co ns id erat io ns do no t m il it at e ag ai ns t a d is co ve ry

or de r, th ey fai l to weig h he av il y en ou gh in fav or of di sc ov e r y to ov erco m e th e

pr in ci pa l fact or s su pp or ti ng th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of And ov er’s p e t i t i on

. The

Germ an co ur t is in a po si ti on to or de r th e req ue st ed di sc ov ery if th e i n f o r m at io n is

ne ed ed

, an d th e Germ an co ur t is be st po si ti on ed to as se ss whe th er an y di sc lo su re can
be acco m pl is he d wi th ou t jeo pa rd iz in g t he sen si ti ve tra de sec ret s i nv ol ve d.

Fo r th es e reas on s, th e di st ric t co u rt di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g
And ov er’s § 17 82 pe ti ti on . The o rd er o f Oct ob er 6 , 20 14 , is affi rm ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-