Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boston Scientific Corp. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

September 19, 2018

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendant. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES PVT, INC., and EDWARDS LIFE SCIENCES LLC, Counterclaim and Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC., and SADRA MEDICAL, INC, Counterclaim and Third-Party Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          SHERRY R. FALLBN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Presently before the court in this patent infringement action is the motion for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), filed by plaintiffs Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (collectively, "Boston Scientific"). (D.I. 442) For the following reasons, the court will deny Boston Scientific's motion for leave to amend its complaint.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On April 19, 2016, Boston Scientific filed this suit against defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation ("Edwards Corp."), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8, 992, 608 ("the '608 patent"). (D.I. 1) On June 9, 2016, Edwards Corp. filed an answer and joined with Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc. ("Edwards PVT") and Edwards Lifesciences LLC ("Edwards LLC") (collectively, "Edwards") to file counterclaims[1] for declaratory relief of noninfringement of the '608 patent, invalidity of the '608 patent, and infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9, 168, 133 ("the '133 patent), 9, 339, 383 ("the '383 patent"), and 7, 510, 575 ("the '575 patent"). (D.I. 10) Boston Scientific answered Edwards' counterclaims and third-party claims on July 5, 2016, admitting that "[a]n actual controversy exists between Edwards and Edwards LLC, and Boston over the alleged infringement of the '608 Patent." (D.I. 17 at ¶ 11;D.I. 10 at ¶ 11)

         Pursuant to the scheduling order, the deadline to amend pleadings passed on November 30, 2016. (D.I. 34 at ¶ 2) On that date, Edwards filed its first motion for leave to amend its pleading to add an affirmative prior use defense, which the court granted on February 28, 2017. (D.I. 65; D.I. 103; D.I. 104) On May 3, 2017, Edwards filed a second motion for leave to amend to add new defenses and counterclaims pertaining to improper inventorship of the '608 patent, which was granted on January 10, 2018. (D.I. 166; D.I. 300; D.I. 301)

         On June 21, 2017, Edwards filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (D.I. 205) The court issued a Report and Recommendation on February 16, 2018, recommending the dismissal only of Boston Scientific Corporation's claims, and not the claims of Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (D.I. 354) Edwards filed its objections to the Report and Recommendation on March 5, 2018. (D.I. 384) On August 21, 2018, the court issued a Memorandum and Order overruling the objections to the Report and Recommendation. (D.I. 457)

         Fact discovery closed on June 30, 2017. (D.I. 34; D.I. 153) On the last day of fact discovery, Edwards supplemented its interrogatory responses, disclosing that "Edwards Lifesciences Corporation does not make, use, offer to sell, or sell SAPIEN 3." (D.I. 444, Ex. 6 at 49)

         In accordance with the scheduling order, the parties filed their motions for summary judgment on infringement and invalidity on January 12, 2018. (D.I. 34 at ¶ 8(c)(1); D.I. 302; D.I. 306; D.I. 307) On February 9, 2018, the parties filed their motions for summary judgment on non infringement and validity. (D.I. 34 at ¶ 8(c)(2); D.I. 328; D.I. 335; D.I. 336; D.I. 337) In its motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, Edwards alleges that "the sole named defendant, Edwards Corp., is a holding company that does not make, use, offer to sell, sell, or import. . . the accused SAPIEN 3." (D.I. 329 at 6) In response, Boston Scientific indicated its intention to seek leave to amend the complaint to add Edwards LLC as a defendant. (D.I. 388 at 4-5)

         Boston Scientific filed the motion presently pending before the court on May 17, 2018, seeking to add Edwards LLC as a defendant to the litigation. (D.I. 442) Trial is scheduled to go forward on November 26, 2018. (D.I. 455)

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that after a responsive pleading has been filed, a party may amend its pleading "only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave," and "[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The decision to grant or deny leave to amend lies within the discretion of the court. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); In re Burlington Coat Factory Sees. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997). The Third Circuit has adopted a liberal approach to the amendment of pleadings. See Dole v. Arco, 921 F.2d 484, 487 (3d Cir. 1990). In the absence of undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motives on the part of the moving party, the amendment should be freely granted, unless it is futile or unfairly prejudicial to the non-moving party. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; In re Burlington, 114 F.3d at 1434.

         If a party seeks leave to amend after a deadline imposed by the scheduling order, the court must apply Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. WebXchange Inc. v. Dell Inc., C.A. No. 08-132-JJF, 2010 WL 256547, at *2 (D. Del. Jan. 20, 2010). A court-ordered schedule "may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). "The good cause element requires the movant to demonstrate that, despite diligence, the proposed claims could not have been reasonably sought in a timely manner." Venetec Int'l v. Nexus Med, 541 F.Supp.2d 612, 618 (D. Del. 2010). The focus of the "good cause" inquiry is, therefore, on diligence of the moving party, rather than on prejudice, futility, bad faith, or any of the other Rule 15 factors. Glaxosmithkline LLC v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., C.A. No. 14-877-LPS-CJB, 2016 WL 7319670, at *1 (D. Del. Dec. 15, 2016). Only after having found the requisite showing of good cause will the court consider whether the proposed amended pleading meets the Rule 15(a) standard. See E. Minerals & Chems. Co. v. Mahan, 225 F.3d 330, 340 (3d Cir. 2000).

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.