December 5, 2017 – On December 1, 2017, the court denied Plaintiffs Boston Scientific Corporation’s and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.’s motion to lift a stay pending inter partes review after the PTAB denied five of the six petitions for review. The case had been pending for nineteen months, therefore, the Court felt it had not yet expended substantial time and effort preparing for trial in this case. Further, the PTO had decided to institute an IPR of one patent, which is the basis for 23 of Plaintiff’s 83 remaining claims. Thus, the PTO’s final determination of that IPR would largely affect and potentially simplify the issues in the proceeding. Finally, the court held that Plaintiff would not undergo any undue prejudice since Plaintiff is seeking only monetary damages and would be sufficiently compensated for any delay with monetary relief.
The patents at issue in the third complaint are U.S. Patent No. 8,709,062 (the “‘062 patent”), entitled “Stent Delivery System Having Stent Securement Apparatus,” U.S. Patent No. 6,203,558 (the “‘558 patent”), entitled “Stent Delivery System Having Stent Securement Apparatus,” U.S. Patent No. 6,371,962 (the “‘962 patent”), entitled “Stent Delivery System With Stent Securement Means”, U.S. Patent No. 7,749,234 (the “‘234 patent”), entitled “Catheter Support For Stent Delivery,” U.S. Patent No. 7,828,767 (the “‘767 patent”), entitled “Balloon Design and Weld Design To Increase Ease Of Re-Wrapping And Decrease Withdrawal Force,” U.S. Patent No. 6,007,543 (the “‘543 patent”), entitled “Stent Delivery System With Stent Securement Means,” U.S. Patent No. 6,712,827 (the “‘827 patent”), entitled “Stent Delivery System,” and U.S. Patent No. 6,915,560 (the “‘560 patent”), entitled “Apparatus For Contracting, Loading Or Crimping Self-Expanding And Balloon Expandable Stent Devices.” The case is captioned Boston Scientific Corporation et al. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, 8-16-cv-00730, and is pending in the Central District of California.
By: Julian G. Pymento