Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Biolitec

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


July 12, 2010

TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP D/B/A VNUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BIOLITEC, INC., DORNIER MEDTECH AMERICA, INC., AND NEW STAR LASERS, INC. D/B/A COOLTOUCH, INC., DEFENDANTS.
TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP D/B/A VNUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TOTAL VEIN SOLUTIONS, LLC D/B/A TOTAL VEIN SYSTEMS, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION AND AMENDED MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (D.I. 176 & 195) [CIVIL L.R. 7-11, 79-5(d)]

to File Documents Under Seal dated June 25 and June 28, 2010, by which Defendants seek leave to file under seal unredacted versions of certain documents submitted in support of a Motion for Summary Judgment that the '084 Patent Claims are Obvious ("Defendants' § 103 Brief"), a Motion for Summary Judgment that the Asserted '433 and '970 Claims are Invalid for Lack of Written Infringement ("TVS's Brief") (collectively, "Defendants' Briefs"). Having reviewed the parties' submissions filed in support of the motion, the Court rules as follows:

plaintiff has shown contain material properly filed under seal (see Kertz Decl., filed July 1, 2010), each of which the Clerk is directed to file under seal: each of which the requesting party is directed to file under seal, no later than five calendar days from the date of this order. See General Order 62 ("If a motion to file under seal is granted in full or in part, the requesting party will e-file the document according to the procedures outlined in the FAQs on the ECF website.").

Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion and Amended Motion for Administrative Relief Description ("Defendants' § 112 Brief"), and a Motion for Summary Judgment of No Contributory 24 25 26 27 28 1. The motion is GRANTED in part, specifically, as to the following documents that x Exhibits 12, 13 (bates-stamped page VNUS_143788), 20 (bates-stamped pages VNUS_145041-42), 21, 29 (transcript pages 71-73), 30, 31, 38, 42 (bates-stamped pages VNUS001123-24), 43-45, 48, 49, 50 (transcript pages 3-4, 86), 55-57, 60, and 62-65 to the Declaration of Charles Steenburg in Support of Defendants' § 103 Brief and Defendants' § 112 Brief, filed on June 25, 2010

x Exhibit P (transcript pages 3-6) to the Declaration of John K. Buche in Support of TVS's Brief, filed on June 25, 2010

x Redacted pages 2 (lns. 14-16), 5 (lns. 10-25), and 8 (lns. 4-5) of Defendants' § 112 Brief, filed on June 25, 2010

x Redacted pages 6 (lns. 19-21), 9 (lns. 16-18), 14 (lns. 14-17), 19 (fn. 11), 20 (lns. 15-18, 21-25), and 21 (lns. 6-10) of Defendants' § 103 Brief, filed on June 25, 2010

2. The motion is DENIED in part, specifically, as to the following documents, in light of plaintiff's having withdrawn its prior designation of confidentiality, and the Clerk is directed to file such documents in the public record: each of which the requesting party is directed to file in the public record no later than five calendar days from the date of this order.

x Exhibits 6, 34, 35, 41, 47, and 54 to the Declaration of Charles Steenburg in Support of Defendants' § 103 Brief and Defendants' § 112 Brief, filed on June 25, 2010

x Exhbits Q, DD, and MM to the Declaration of John K. Buche in Support of TVS's Brief, filed on June 25, 2010

x Designated portions of Defendants' Briefs not identified above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100712

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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