UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 26, 2012
MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC., ET AL.,
PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS,
DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge
ORDER RE: MEDTRONIC'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, NEW TRIAL; [Doc. No. 406]
NUVASIVE'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, NEW TRIAL; [Doc. No. 407]
WARSAW'S MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES; [Doc. No. 408]
WARSAW'S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION [Doc. No. 409]
On Thursday, January 26, 2012, four post-trial matters came before the Court for hearing:
(1) Medtronic's motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, new trial [Doc. No. 406]; (2) NuVasive's motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, new trial [Doc. No. 407]; (3) Warsaw's motion for supplemental damages [Doc. No. 408]; and (4) Warsaw's motion for permanent injunction [Doc. No. 409]. Prior to the hearing, the Court issued tentative rulings indicating it was inclined to deny each of the four motions. [Doc. No. 458.] For the reasons set forth on the record during the January 26 hearing, the Court AFFIRMS its tentative rulings.
With respect to the additional damages that will be set by the Court, the parties are instructed to provide supplemental briefing on the following issues: (i) the ongoing royalties that will be imposed for infringing sales made after the date of the jury's verdict, September 20, 2011; and (ii) an appropriate rate of prejudgment interest.*fn1 Each party shall submit a single opening brief, not to exceed 25 pages, on or before February 10, 2012. Each party shall submit a single opposition brief, not to exceed 25 pages, on or before February 24, 2012. No reply briefs shall be filed. Upon review of the parties submissions, the Court will set a hearing if necessary.
Lastly, the Court hereby sets a scheduling conference for February 27, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. to discuss any issues regarding the entry of a Rule 54(b) final judgment as to Phase I of this action. The parties need not submit briefing on this issue prior to the scheduling conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.