Cases

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

ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO, District Judge. Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) filed by Defendant Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”). Plaintiffs Alma Suckow and Eugene Suckow filed a Response (ECF No. 15) and Defendant Medtronic filed a Reply (ECF No. 18). Defendant Medtronic also filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (ECF No. 14). I. BACKGROUND

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT [16] STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On March 8, 2013, Plaintiff Jennifer Houston (“Plaintiff’) commenced this action against Defendants Medtronic, Inc., and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that she suffered harmful side effects after undergoing lumbar

ARTHUR, J. This case principally concerns the extent to which federal law expressly or impliedly preempts state common-law and statutory claims for personal injuries that resulted from the so-called “off-label” promotion of a medical device. Relying on one of the first of what are now numerous federal district

ORDER TIM LEONARD, District Judge. Plaintiff, Dr. Jan K. Voda, is the holder of United States Patent No. 6,083,213 (“the '213 patent”), which was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 4, 2000. Exhibit 1 to Complaint (Doc. No. 1). The '213 patent contains method claims; that is, it relates to plaintiffs inventive technique for using a guiding catheter to perform angioplast

628 F.3d 451 (2010) Mark BROWN, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, Christine Wright; Kathy Breiwick, Movants, v. MEDTRONIC, INC.; Carol A. McCormick; The Qualified Plan Committee of Medtronic, Inc.; The Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors Compensation Committee; Richard H. Anderson; Victor J. Dzau; James T. Lenehan; Kendall J. Powell; Jack W. Schuler; The Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors; Dav

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...139 II. FACTS RELATED TO CAROLINE AND HER INJURIES...141 A. The Hypoglycemic Event...141 B. The Medtronic Paradigm Insulin Pump Model MMT-522 And The Medtronic MiniMed Paradigm Quick-set Infusion Set, Model MMT-396...143

ORDER TIM LEONARD, District Judge. Plaintiff, Dr. Jan K. Voda, is the holder of United States Patent No. 6,083,213 (“the '213 patent”), which was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 4, 2000. Exhibit 1 to Complaint (Doc. No. 1-2). The '213 patent contains method claims; that is, it relates to plaintiffs inventive technique for using a guiding catheter to perform angio

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

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in full with Judge Wollman's opinion. As it recounts, when selecting the Pacesetter-Medtronic US agreement as a comparable uncontrolled transaction ("CUT"), the tax court did not sufficiently address: (1) the fact it arose out of litigation; (2) the lump sum payment that was a part of it; (3) the cross-licenses that were a part of it; and (4) certain intangibles that

672 F.Supp.2d 933 (2009) The KINETIC CO., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MEDTRONIC, INC. No. 08-CV-6062 (JMR/AJB). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. December 4, 2009. *938 Casandra A. Murphy, Joseph H. Meltzer, Terence S. Ziegler, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA, Lau

Justice Stevens, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. The significance of the pre-emption provision in the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA), 21 U. S. C. § 360k, *331was not fully appreciated until many years after it was enacted. It is an example of a statute whose text and general

482 F.Supp.2d 746 (2007) Steven RATTAY, and Sharon Rattay, his wife, Plaintiff's, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., individually and t/d/b/a Medtronic Neurological; and Medtronic USA., Inc., individually and t/d/b/a Medtronic Neurological, Defendants. Civil Action No. 5:05-cv-177. United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Clarksburg Division. April 3, 2007.

618 F.Supp.2d 1191 (2009) MEDTRONIC, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. AGA MEDICAL CORPORATION, Defendant. No. C-07-0567 MMC. United States District Court, N.D. California. April 28, 2009. *1192 James J. Elacqua, Andrew Neil Thomases, Ellen J. Wang, Hieu H. Phan, Joshua C. Walsh-Benson, Michelle Wai Yang, Noemi C. Espinosa, Dechert LL

(2008) CORDIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., Boston Scientific Corporation, and Scimed Life Systems, Inc., Defendants. Boston Scientific Corporation and Scimed Life Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Ethicon, Inc., Cordis Corporation and Johnson & Johnson Interventional Systems Co., Defendants. Civ. Nos. 97-550-SLR, 98-19-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware.<

MELLOY, Circuit Judge, Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. I. I concur with the majority except as to the dismissal of the manufacturing-defect claim and the related issues of the denial of the plaintiffs discovery request and motion to amend. On these issues, I would reverse and remand for limited discovery and the opportunity to amend the master

378 F.Supp.2d 503 (2005) MEDTRONIC INC., Plaintiff, v. GUIDANT CORPORATION, Guidant Sales Corporation, Eli Lilly & Company, Mirowski Family Ventures L.L.C., Defendants. No. CIV.03-848-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. July 19, 2005. *504 Karen Jacobs Louden, Philip Bangle, of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell

336 F.Supp.2d 363 (2004) CORDIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC AVE, INC., Boston Scientific Corporation and Scimed Life Systems, Inc., Defendants. Medtronic Ave, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Cordis Corporation, Johnson & Johnson and Expandable Grafts Partnership, Defendants. Boston Scientific Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Ethicon, Inc., Cordis Corporation and Johnson & Johnson Interventional Systems Co., Defendants.

SMITH, Circuit Judge. Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”) filed suit against U.S. Xpress, Inc. (“USX”) — a contract carrier — after USX denied its claim for damages to several shipments of medical equipment it sent via the Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”). USX filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court 1

131 F.Supp.2d 1070 (1999) Doris ADCOX, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant. No. LR-C-96-333. United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division. December 16, 1999. *1071 R. Henry Hodges, Attorney at Law, Steven Eugene Cauley, Scott E. Poynter, Gina Michelle Cothern, Cauley, Geller, Bowman & Coates, L.L .P., Li