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 26, 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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL [CIVIL LOCAL RULES 7-11, 79-5]

Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Administrative Relief to File Documents Under Seal dated July 9, 2010, by which Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal unredacted versions of certain documents submitted in support of Plaintiff's Oppositions to (1) Total Vein Solutions, Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and in the Alternative Summary Adjudication Limiting LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Contributory Infringement; (2) biolitec's Motion for Damages; (3) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment That the Asserted '433 and '970 Claims are Invalid for Lack of Written Description; and (4) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment that the Asserted '084 Claims are Obvious ("VNUS's Opposition Briefs"). Having reviewed the parties' submissions filed in support of the motion, the Court rules as follows:

shown contain material properly filed under seal, each of which the Clerk is directed to file under seal: plaintiff 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...ontheECF website.")

IT IS SO ORDERED. calendar days from the date of this order.

1. The motion is GRANTED as to the following documents that the parties have x The entirety of Exhibits 7, 8, 24, 64, 68, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 and 89 and designated portions of Exhibits 17, 62 and 99 to the Declaration of David J. Lisson in Support of VNUS's Opposition Briefs which have been designated by VNUS.

x The entirety of Exhibits 14, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 65, 70, 76, 77, 80, 82, 90, 91, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 104, 107, 108, 109, 112, 113 and 114 and designated portions of Exhibits and 62 to the Declaration of David J. Lisson in Support of VNUS's Opposition Briefs which have been designated by the Defendants.

x Designated portions of VNUS's Opposition Briefs, dated July 9, 2010, specifically, those portions of VNUS's Opposition Briefs in which the content of the above 2. The motion is DENIED as to the following documents, as the designating party has not filed a "responsive declaration," see Civil Local Rule 79-5(d): Exs. 14, 17, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 40-46, 48-51, 54, 55, 59, 60, 62, 65, 70, 76, 77, 80, 82, 90, 91, 95, 97, 98, 101, 104, 107-09, and 112-14.

Plaintiff is directed to file such documents in the public record no later than five.

20100726

© 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.