Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. MELISSA STAGGERS and RHONDA KURDELMEYER, Plaintiff-Relators, v. Case No. 1:15-cv-392-TSC-RMM MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a qui tam action brought by Relators Melissa Staggers and Rhonda Kurdelmeyer (collectively “Relator

RULING JAMES J. BRADY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA These matters are before the Court on two motions. The first is a Motion for *921Preliminary Injunction (Doe. 4) brought by the Plaintiffs.1 The Defendants2 have filed an Opposition (Doc. 22). The second motion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOHN R. TUNHEIM, Chief Judge, United States District Court Plaintiffs Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic USA, Inc. (collectively “Medtronic”) bring this action against their former employee, Amanda Ernst, and her new employer, Nevro Corp. (“Nevro”). Medtronic alleges that Ernst breached her employment agreement by accepting a position at Nev-ro, and that Nevro tortuously interfered wi

DECISION AND ORDER DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. Patent litigation often involves complex, abstruse matters, since the patents at issue often relate to cutting-edge technology. The case law governing such litigation can be similarly complex. This case is one example. This ease involves two patents concerning technology relating to health care. Many of the legal issues in

Smith, District Judge. *835In this case, the relator contends that the defendant, a medical device company, paid kickbacks to health care providers in violation of the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act, however, includes a public disclosure bar that prohibits lawsuits brought by relators where the relator's allegations of fraud have alread

OPINION and ORDER CHARLES R. BUTLER, JR., Senior District Judge. This action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, involves several employment discrimination claims based on “reverse” discrimination and retaliation. The defendant has filed a motion seeking summary judgment on all claims. (Doc. 45.) After due consideration of the motion, plaintiffs response, and all supporting evidence and bri

BEAM, Circuit Judge. Norah Oehmke appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her suit against Medtronic, Inc., for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRÁ). We affirm. I. BACKGROUND

ORDER H. RUSSEL HOLLAND, District Judge. Motion to Dismiss Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral argument was requested but is not deemed necessary. Background Plaintiffs are Debra and Patrick Martin. Defendants s

ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge. Plaintiff Rodney Waldoch (“Waldoch”) brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1466 (2006), against Defendant Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”), his former employer, seeking recovery of Long Term Disability (“LTD”) benefits under an employee benefit plan. Now before the Court are the parties’ Cross-Motions for Sum

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2543 ___________________________ Rodney Waldoch lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Medtronic, Inc. llllllll

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. Rodney Waldoch sued his former employer Medtronic, Inc., alleging that Med-tronic improperly denied his claim for benefits under a long-term disability plan (the Plan) governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The district court 1 granted Medtronic’s motion for sum

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed March 23, 2018 (Doc. 27)("MTD"). The Court held a hearing on August 10, 2018. The primary issues are: (i) whether the applicable statutes of limitations bar Plaintiff Janice Nowell's claims against Defendants Medtronic Inc., Covidien PLC, Covidien LP, and Medtronic PLC for negligence, strict

McHUGH, Circuit Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In 2010, Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corporation (“Lenox”) sued several related corporations — Medtronic, Inc.; Medtronic PS Medical, Inc. (“PS Medical”); Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. (“MSD, Inc.”); and Medtronic Sofamor Danek Co. Ltd. (“MSD Japan”) (collectively, “Defendants”) — for monopolization and attempted monopo

*1120MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER Stephen M. McNamee, Senior United States District Judge Pending before the Court is Defendant Medtronic Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jose Valtierra’s (“Valtierra”) remaining claims: his claim of interference with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and his claims of d

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MEDTRONIC, INC. AND MED-TRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6) J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On December 16, 2013, Plaintiff Karla Beavers-Gabriel (“Plaintiff’) filed this action against Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (c

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corporation manufactures bone mills, which are medical devices used in spinal-fusion surgery. In 2000, Lenox began to sell some of its bone mills through a Medtronic entity, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA. The arrangement ended badly: Medtronic Sofa-mor Danek USA initiated a recall of Le-nox’s bone mills, and another Medtronic ent

*265MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Relator Adam Witkin brings this qui tarn action against Medtronic, Inc. — and its wholly-owned subsidiary • Medtronic MiniMed, Inc. (collectively, “Medtronic”)-as a relator on behalf of the United States, 26 individual states and the District of Columbia. He alleges vi

677 F.Supp.2d 582 (2009) Hector ILARRAZA, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant. No. CV 09-3264. United States District Court, E.D. New York. December 28, 2009. Sanders, Sanders, Block, Woycik, Viener & Grossman, P.C. by Joseph Viener, Esq., Mineola, NY, for Plaintiff. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP by Ryan J. Cooper, Esq. and John P. Lavelle, Jr., Es

494 F.Supp.2d 864 (2007) Timothy ROBERSON and Gwendolyn A. Roberson, for themselves and as representatives of a class, Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC, INC.; Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.; Michael F. Demane; Todd N. Sheldon; Greg Sellers; Jeff Moore; Mike Harrah; Laurence Fairey; Ron Picard; Ted Bird; Hank Pellegrin; Lisa Buckler; David Miller; Robert A. Comptom; Kevin Foley; Claudio Feler; Maurice M. Smith; and Semmes-Murphey Clinic, a Professional

OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. On October 25, 2011, the Court conducted a Markman hearing for the purpose of construing the eight disputed claims in the patent at issue in this case. After careful consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties, the arguments advanced at the Markman hearing, and the record before the Court, the Court issues this Opinion and