QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC

D. Minnesota

QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC

District Court, D. Minnesota·Decided December 18, 2024·No. 0:17-cv-01969·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

QXMEDICAL, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-1969 (LMP/TNL)

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant,

v. ORDER VACATING FINAL JUDGMENT VASCULAR SOLUTIONS LLC, TELEFLEX LIFE SCIENCES LLC, ARROW INTERNATIONAL LLC, and TELEFLEX LLC,

Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.

Before the Court is the parties’ joint Motion for Relief from Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). ECF No. 371. That Rule allows the Court to relieve the parties from the final judgment entered in this case on February 15, 2024, (ECF No. 353) if “the judgment . . . is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). Here, the Court granted a stipulated final judgment in favor of QXMedical because a final judgment in a separate case, Vascular Solutions LLC et al. v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-CV-1760 (D. Minn.), barred all of Defendants’ claims under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. ECF No. 351. That ruling has since been reversed and vacated. Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 117 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Accordingly, because the final judgment in this case was based on the estoppel effect of a final judgment that has since been vacated, Rule 60(b)(5) applies. See Lowry Dev., L.L.C. v. Groves & Assocs. Ins., Inc., 690 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2012) (“A decision is based on a prior judgment when it is a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for example, to the

cause of action or a successful defense.’” (quoting Flowers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs. Inc., 286 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2002)); Wogoman v. Abramajtys, 243 F.App’x 885, 888 (6th Cir. June 19, 2007) (“Rule 60(b)(5) . . . is limited to a judgment based on a prior judgment reversed or otherwise vacated-based in the sense of res judicata, or collateral estoppel, or somehow part of the same proceeding.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Final Judgment (ECF No. 353)

is VACATED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5).

Dated: December 18, 2024 s/ Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

QXMEDICAL, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-1969 (LMP/TNL)

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant,

v. ORDER VACATING FINAL JUDGMENT VASCULAR SOLUTIONS LLC, TELEFLEX LIFE SCIENCES LLC, ARROW INTERNATIONAL LLC, and TELEFLEX LLC,

Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.

Before the Court is the parties’ joint Motion for Relief from Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). ECF No. 371. That Rule allows the Court to relieve the parties from the final judgment entered in this case on February 15, 2024, (ECF No. 353) if “the judgment . . . is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). Here, the Court granted a stipulated final judgment in favor of QXMedical because a final judgment in a separate case, Vascular Solutions LLC et al. v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-CV-1760 (D. Minn.), barred all of Defendants’ claims under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. ECF No. 351. That ruling has since been reversed and vacated. Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 117 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Accordingly, because the final judgment in this case was based on the estoppel effect of a final judgment that has since been vacated, Rule 60(b)(5) applies. See Lowry Dev., L.L.C. v. Groves & Assocs. Ins., Inc., 690 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2012) (“A decision is based on a prior judgment when it is a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for example, to the

cause of action or a successful defense.’” (quoting Flowers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs. Inc., 286 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2002)); Wogoman v. Abramajtys, 243 F.App’x 885, 888 (6th Cir. June 19, 2007) (“Rule 60(b)(5) . . . is limited to a judgment based on a prior judgment reversed or otherwise vacated-based in the sense of res judicata, or collateral estoppel, or somehow part of the same proceeding.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Final Judgment (ECF No. 353)

is VACATED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5).

Dated: December 18, 2024 s/ Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge

QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC, (mnd 2024).

Pincite

QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC (QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related