Abiomed Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC
Abiomed Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC
2019 WL 13089051 (D. Mass. 2019)
June 21, 2019
Saylor IV, F. Dennis, United States District Judge
Summary
Abiomed's motion to compel production of patent transaction, assessment, valuation, and licensing documents held by Getinge Group entities located outside of the United States was denied by the court. The court found that Abiomed had not demonstrated that the documents were within the custody or control of Maquet, and that the potential relevance of the documents was not always clear.
Additional Decisions
ABIOMED, INC., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR LLC, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Counter-Claimant,
v.
ABIOMED EUROPE GMBH, Third-Party Defendant,
v.
ABIOMED R&D, INC., Third-Party Defendant/Counter-Claimant
v.
MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR LLC, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Counter-Claimant,
v.
ABIOMED EUROPE GMBH, Third-Party Defendant,
v.
ABIOMED R&D, INC., Third-Party Defendant/Counter-Claimant
Civil Action No. 16-10914-FDS
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Signed June 21, 2019
Counsel
Andrei Harasymiak, Pro Hac Vice, Lauren A. Moskowitz, Pro Hac Vice, Reshma R. Gogineni, Pro Hac Vice, Sharonmoyee Goswami, Pro Hac Vice, Lauren A. Moskowitz, Keith R. Hummel, Pro Hac Vice, Keith R. Hummel, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, C. Sebastian Zonte, Pro Hac Vice, John Padro, Pro Hac Vice, Matthew Wisnieff, Pro Hac Vice, Scott T. Weingaertner, Pro Hac Vice, Stefan M. Mentzer, Pro Hac Vice, John Padro, Scott T. Weingaertner, Stefan M. Mentzer, Laura Rees Logsdon, Pro Hac Vice, White & Case LLP, New York, NY, Charles D. Larsen, White & Case, LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Abiomed, Inc.Andrei Harasymiak, Pro Hac Vice, Lauren A. Moskowitz, Pro Hac Vice, Reshma R. Gogineni, Pro Hac Vice, Sharonmoyee Goswami, Pro Hac Vice, Lauren A. Moskowitz, Sharonmoyee Goswami, Keith R. Hummel, Pro Hac Vice, Keith R. Hummel, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, C. Sebastian Zonte, Pro Hac Vice, Scott T. Weingaertner, Stefan M. Mentzer, Pro Hac Vice, Stefan M. Mentzer, White & Case LLP, New York, NY, Charles D. Larsen, White & Case, LLP, Boston, MA, for Third-Party Defendant/Counter-Claimant Abiomed Europe GmbH, Abiomed R&D, Inc.
Andrew J. Ligotti, Pro Hac Vice, Christopher L. McArdle, Pro Hac Vice, Neal J. McLaughlin, Pro Hac Vice, Paul J. Tanck, Pro Hac Vice, Wade G. Perrin, Pro Hac Vice, Wade G. Perrin, Christopher L. McArdle, Paul J. Tanck, Alston & Bird, LLP, Gregory J. Carbo, Pro Hac Vice, Chadbourne & Parke LLP, New York, NY, Michael S. Connor, Pro Hac Vice, Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC, Robert H. Stier, Jr., Margaret K. Minister, Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, ME, James Charles Grant, Pro Hac Vice, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Erik Paul Belt, McCarter & English, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Counter-Claimant Maquet Cardiovascular LLC.
C. Sebastian Zonte, Pro Hac Vice, Stefan M. Mentzer, Pro Hac Vice, White & Case LLP, New York, NY, Charles D. Larsen, White & Case, LLP, Boston, MA, for Third-Party Defendant/Counter-Claimant Abiomed R&D, Inc.
Saylor IV, F. Dennis, United States District Judge
ORDER ON ABIOMED'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PATENT TRANSACTION, ASSESSMENT, VALUATION, AND LICENSING DOCUMENTS
*1 This is an action for patent infringement. Defendant Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC (“Maquet”) is the owner of several patents for guidable intravascular blood pumps and related methods. Plaintiff Abiomed, Inc. (“Abiomed”) has filed a complaint requesting declaratory judgement of noninfringement of three Maquet patents. Maquet has filed a counterclaim.
Maquet is part of the Getinge Group, an assortment of companies whose ultimate owner is Getinge AB, a Swedish corporation. Abiomed has moved to compel production of patent transaction, assessment, valuation, and licensing documents held by Getinge Group entities located outside of the United States. Abiomed contends that the requested documents are relevant to its claims and defenses, and that the documents are in the possession, custody, or control of Maquet.
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
The requested discovery appears to be outside the scope of discoverable information under Rule 26(b)(1). The potential relevance of the documents is not always clear, and there are substantial questions as to whether the documents as a general matter are cumulative, duplicative, or privileged, to the extent they are relevant. Furthermore, and more importantly, Abiomed has not demonstrated that the documents are within the custody or control of Maquet. The documents at issue appear to be located in Sweden. The mere fact that Maquet is a subsidiary of Getinge, and appears to share a legal-services department, is not enough to establish that it is the alter ego of its parent. There is no evidence of intermingling of officers and directors, or failure to observe corporate formalities. And Abiomed has not established that Maquet can obtain access to the documents of the parent on demand, or otherwise has effective control over the documents.
Accordingly, Abiomed's motion to compel production of patent transaction, assessment, valuation, and licensing documents from Getinge Group entities is DENIED.
So Ordered.