Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES Case No. 19-cv-06593-HSG CORPORATION, et al., 8 ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE Plaintiffs, SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY 9 JUDGMENT AND STRIKING MOTION v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 200, 214 11 Defendants. 12 13 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (“Edwards” or “Plaintiff”), a medical technology 14 company specializing in artificial heart valves, filed this lawsuit against Meril Life Sciences Pvt. 15 Ltd. and Meril, Inc. (collectively, “Meril” or “Defendants”) on October 14, 2019, asserting claims 16 of patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Dkt. No. 1. Now 17 pending before the Court is Defendants’ administrative motion seeking leave to file a second 18 summary judgment motion, which Plaintiff opposes. See Dkt. Nos. 200 (“Mot.”), 201 (“Opp.”). 19 For the reasons explained below, Defendants’ Administrative Motion for Leave to File Second 20 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary 21 Judgment is STRICKEN. 22 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 23 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) states five causes of action for patent 24 infringement as well as causes of action for trademark infringement and unfair competition. See 25 Dkt. No. 51. On June 1, 2020, Defendants filed their first motion for summary judgment against 26 Edwards for non-infringement of United States Patent Nos. 9,393,110 (the ’110 patent); 9,119,716 27 (the ’716 patent); 10,292,817 (the ’817 patent), 6,878,168 (the ’168 patent); and 10,053,256 (the 1 October 16, 2020, and dismissed Plaintiff’s five causes of action for patent infringement. See Dkt. 2 No. 98. On November 13, 2020, the Court issued a scheduling order governing Plaintiff’s 3 remaining claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition. See Dkt. No. 106. The Court 4 set the following case deadlines: August 6 and August 20, 2021, for the exchange of opening and 5 rebuttal expert reports; September 3 and 7, 2021, for the close of fact and expert discovery; and 6 October 21, 2021, for the dispositive motion hearing. Id. The Court also set the Pretrial 7 Conference on January 18, 2022, with the Jury Trial to begin on February 7, 2022. Id. 8 On September 3, 2021, Defendants filed a motion seeking leave to file a second summary 9 judgment motion on the grounds that, now at the close of discovery, Plaintiff has “failed to adduce 10 any evidence that it is entitled to damages for its remaining trademark and unfair competition 11 claims.” See Dkt. No. 200 at 1. Plaintiff opposes this request and contends that its damages 12 expert has put forth a report calculating, among other things, actual damages for loss of Plaintiff’s 13 goodwill and harm to its reputation. See Dkt. No. 201 at 2. 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 Under the Court’s Standing Order, “[p]arties are limited to filing one motion for summary 16 judgment.” Civil Standing Order ¶ 21. Any party wishing to exceed this limit must request leave 17 of Court and must show “good cause.” Id. This rule is in line with the principle that successive 18 motions for summary judgment are “generally disfavored” in federal court. Peasley v. Spearman, 19 No. 15-CV-01769-LHK, 2017 WL 5451709, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2017) (citations omitted). 20 However, district courts in this Circuit have discretion to permit successive motions for summary 21 judgment. Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). When considering 22 whether to permit a successive motion for summary judgment, some courts in this Circuit have 23 considered the following factors: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability 24 of new evidence or an expanded factual record; and (3) the need to correct a clear error or prevent 25 manifest injustice.” See Kische USA LLC v. Simsek, No. C16-0168JLR, 2017 WL 5881322, at *3 26 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 29, 2017) (citations and internal punctuation omitted); see also Brazill v. Cal. 27 Northstate Coll. of Pharm., LLC, No. CIV. 2:12-1218 WBS GGH, 2013 WL 4500667, at *1 (E.D. 1 Here, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to show “good cause” to exceed their 2 limit of one summary judgment motion for three reasons. First, it does not appear, and Defendants 3 do not demonstrate, that their second motion would be based on an intervening change in 4 controlling law. Second, while Defendants emphasize that their second motion for summary 5 judgment would not overlap with their first—in other words, there is new evidence and an 6 expanded factual record available—the Court finds that this often will be the case when, as here, a 7 party moves for summary judgment early in the case well before the close of fact discovery. This 8 factor thus has little persuasive weight in this case. 9 Finally, and most importantly, the Court notes that Defendants’ second motion for summary 10 judgment is unlikely to narrow the issues in this lawsuit or lead to its efficient resolution because it 11 focuses on a plainly disputed issue of fact. Defendants’ principal contention is that Plaintiff has 12 failed to produce compelling evidence that it suffered harm as a result of Defendants’ alleged 13 misstatements at issue in this case. See Mot. at 2. In response, Plaintiff contends that its damages 14 experts have explained how Defendants’ statements harmed Plaintiff’s reputation as an innovator 15 and leader in its field, and have calculated actual damages for loss of Plaintiff’s goodwill, harm to its 16 reputation, and corrective advertising. See Opp. at 3. Bearing in mind that this Court would be 17 required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, 18 see Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007), the Court finds that Defendants’ second motion for 19 summary judgment is unlikely to resolve these competing allegations of fact and therefore would 20 not foster the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of this lawsuit. See Hoffman, 593 F.3d at 21 911. Moreover, the Court finds little risk of injustice or prejudice to Defendants since, if necessary, 22 they may raise this argument as a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) of the 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as was done in the sole (unpublished) case they cite in their 24 administrative motion. See Out of the Box Enterprises, LLC v. El Paseo Jewelry Exch., Inc., 732 25 F. App’x 532 (9th Cir. 2018) (reviewing a district court’s denial of a Rule 50(b) motion for 26 judgment as a matter of law and concluding that plaintiff failed to introduce evidence sufficient to 27 establish the existence and amount of its Lanham Act damages). For these reasons, the Court 1 for summary judgment. 2 || Il. CONCLUSION 3 Defendants’ Administrative Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Summary 4 || Judgment is DENIED. As a necessary consequence, Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary 5 Judgment, Dkt. No. 214, is STRICKEN. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 9/21/2021

awoee S. GILLIAM, JR. □ 2 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28