Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Medtronic MiniMed Inc. v. Animas Corp.

United States District Court, C.D. California

May 8, 2014

Medtronic Minimed Inc.; Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co.; Minimed Distribution Corp., Plaintiffs,
Animas Corporation, Defendant

Page 1061

For Medtronic MiniMed Inc, Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co, MiniMed Distribution Corp, Plaintiffs: Alexander F MacKinnon, Erin C Kolter, Luke L Dauchot, Sharre S Lotfollahi, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA.

For Animas Corporation, Defendant: David T Pritikin, Hugh A Abrams, Lauren Abendshien, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Erik John Carlson, Theodore W Chandler, Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA.


HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior United States District Judge.

Page 1062


Currently before the Court is Defendant Animas Corporation's (" Defendant" ) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,065 [69]. Plaintiffs Medtronic Minimed Inc., Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co., and Minimed Distribution Corp. (collectively, " Plaintiffs" ), filed their Opposition on February 6, 2014 [83]. Defendant filed its Reply on February 18, 2014 [90]. The Court heard arguments on this matter on April 16, 2014 [103]. The Court, having reviewed all papers and arguments submitted pertaining to this Motion, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion.


Plaintiffs design, manufacture, and distribute portable insulin delivery systems for use by individuals with diabetes. In relation thereto, Plaintiff Medtronic MiniMed Inc. owns eight separate United States patents, all of which are titled " External Infusion Device with Remote Programming, Bolus Estimator and/or Vibration Alarm Capabilities." First Am. Compl. (" FAC" ) ¶ ¶ 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 36, 41, 48. These patents were issued on varying dates between April 22, 2003, and October 26, 2010. Id. Medtronic Minimed Inc. also owns United States Patent No. 5,665,065 (the " '065 patent" ) titled " Medication Infusion Device with Blood Glucose Data Input," which was issued on September 9, 1997. Id. at ¶ 53. Medtronic Puerto Rico and MiniMed Distribution are each exclusive licensees of these nine patents. Id. at ¶ ¶ 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 36, 41, 48, 53.

Similarly to Plaintiffs, Defendant manufactures and sells portable insulin delivery systems, including the Animas OneTouch Ping Glucose Management System (" OneTouch System" ), which was released in 2005. Am. Answer ¶ ¶ 4, 11. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant's manufacture and sale of the OneTouch System infringes upon each of Plaintiffs' aforementioned patents. FAC ¶ ¶ 11, 16, 21, 26, 31, 37, 42, 49, 54.

Page 1063

The only patent at issue in this Motion is the '065 patent. Plaintiffs claim that Defendant is infringing on claims 3 and 9 of the '065 patent. Id. at ¶ 54.

Type I diabetes is caused by the pancreas' inability to produce sufficient insulin. Stone Decl. (Dkt. # 83-11) ¶ 12. Insulin cannot be taken orally so it is traditionally injected with a syringe according to a multiple daily injection regimen (" MDI" ). Id. This typically utilizes long-acting insulin to provide a user's baseline insulin needs (a " basal" delivery) and rapid-acting insulin to provide a user's immediate insulin needs (a " bolus" delivery), such as to counteract carbohydrates consumed in a meal or to correct an elevated blood glucose level. Id. Insulin pumps can provide both basal and bolus deliveries. Id. Such pumps work by operating a mechanized system that infuses insulin into the patient from a reservoir. Id.

The '065 patent discloses and claims a medication infusion device that is usable with either an insulin pump or an insulin pen. See '065 patent. This device receives blood glucose data (such as from an attached glucose sensor or meter or from a peripheral device) and recommends a new dispensing protocol responsive to this data. Id. at 4:11-30.

The '065 patent describes a device which receives the blood glucose data, responds to manually inputted instructions, and ultimately regulates and operates an insulin pump to administer insulin to the patient. Id. at 4:11-49. The device responds to its initial programming and to the glucose reading to provide the patient with three options with respect to control of the insulin dosage rate. Id. at 4:41-43.

Page 1064

In the first option, the device is set to automatically implement any protocol modification " recommended by the controller software, in response to the glucose reading data input." Id. at 4:47-48. In short, the device uses the glucose reading to calculate and administer a new insulin dosage rate. This option corresponds with block 32 in Figure 3.

In the second option, the device software is set to provide a recommended dispensing protocol. Id. at 4:51-54. The patient is then given the opportunity to accept or reject the recommended modified protocol through manual input. Id. at 4:55-58. This option corresponds with block 34 of Figure 3.

In the third option, the device software allows the patient to manually input a dosage rate entirely different from the controller-recommended protocol. Id. at 4:65-67. This option corresponds with block 38 of Figure 3.


Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A fact is " material" for purposes of summary judgment if it might affect the outcome of the suit, and a " genuine issue" exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The evidence, and any inferences based on underlying facts, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. MCA, Inc., 715 F.2d 1327, 1329 (9th Cir. 1983).

Where the moving party does not have the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, the moving party may meet its burden for summary judgment by showing an " absence of evidence" to support the non-moving party's case. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

The non-moving party, on the other hand, is required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) to go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. Conclusory allegations unsupported by factual allegations are insufficient to create a triable issue of fact so as to preclude summary judgment. Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993). A non-moving party who has the burden of proof at trial must present

Page 1065

enough evidence that a " fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the [non-moving party] on the evidence presented." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Where a motion for summary judgment is grounded on the assertion that the non-moving party has no evidence, the non-moving party may defeat the motion by " calling the Court's attention to supporting evidence already in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the moving party." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332.

Conclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment. See Falls Riverway Realty, Inc. v. Niagara Falls, 754 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985); Thornhill Pub. Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). The party who will have the burden of proof must persuade the Court that it will have sufficient admissible evidence to justify going to trial. Notmeyer v. Stryker Corp., 502 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court's function is not to weigh the evidence, but only to determine if a genuine issue of material fact exists. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.

Partial summary judgment is authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. A partial summary judgment is not a final judgment but rather an interlocutory summary adjudication or a pre-trial order. Wynn v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp., 212 F.2d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 1954). Neither is appealable prior to the entry of a final judgment in the case in the absence of a specific statute authorizing an appeal. Id. Rule 56 allows a court to grant partial summary judgment, thereby ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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