QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:17-cv-01969
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC, Judge Provinzino denied QXMedical permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider a 2019 ruling and to assert a new patent non-infringement defense at trial, finding no compelling circumstances because QXMedical could have raised the same defense years earlier and allowing it now would severely prejudice the defendants.
QXMedical, LLC, a medical device company seeking to introduce a new patent non-infringement defense at trial, is directly affected by this denial. Companies in patent litigation who seek to raise new defenses years after adverse summary judgment rulings, particularly in the District of Minnesota, should note the court's strict application of the 'compelling circumstances' standard for reconsideration and the weight given to prior rulings on the same issue.
What happened
QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC (also involving defendants Arrow International LLC, Teleflex LLC, and Teleflex Life Sciences LLC) is a patent dispute that began in 2017, when QXMedical sought a court declaration that its Boosting Catheter did not infringe Teleflex's patents. In October 2019, the court ruled against QXMedical on that issue, finding infringement of several patent claims. After years of related litigation, stays, appeals, and a new trial date set for September 29, 2025, QXMedical sought permission to reopen that 2019 ruling and introduce a new defense — arguing its catheter lacks a structural feature required by the patents — based on a June 2025 claim construction order issued in a related case involving a different defendant (Medtronic).
This was not QXMedical's first attempt to raise this defense. In 2022, QXMedical made a nearly identical request, which was denied by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung and then by Chief District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz. Both judges found that QXMedical could have raised the defense from the beginning of the case, that the fact another party in a different case raised a similar argument did not make the defense newly available, and that allowing the defense would severely prejudice Teleflex by requiring additional discovery and possibly more pre-trial motions. QXMedical acknowledged at a July 2025 hearing that its current request was similar to the one it made three years ago.
Judge Provinzino denied QXMedical's request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Under the court's local rules, a party must show 'compelling circumstances' to be permitted to file such a motion, and reconsideration is meant only to correct clear legal or factual errors or to present newly discovered evidence — not to repeat or revive arguments that could have been made earlier. Judge Provinzino agreed with Teleflex that QXMedical was essentially raising the same defense rejected in 2022, that it could have raised that defense long before then, and that the prejudice to Teleflex from reopening these issues just months before trial remained severe. The court concluded that if QXMedical was too late in 2022, it was too late now.
The detailed version
- QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC et al., No. 17-cv-1969 (LMP/SGE)
- Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge
- July 30, 2025
Background
QXMedical filed this action in June 2017 seeking a declaratory judgment — a court ruling declaring — that its Boosting Catheter did not infringe patents held by Vascular Solutions, LLC, Arrow International LLC, Teleflex LLC, and Teleflex Life Sciences LLC (collectively 'Teleflex'). On October 2, 2019, the court granted partial summary judgment in Teleflex's favor, holding that the Boosting Catheter infringed claims 25, 36, 52, and 53 of Teleflex's RE45,776 patent.
2022 Attempt to Amend
In April 2022, approximately three years after the summary judgment order and with trial then set for June 2022, QXMedical moved to amend its non-infringement defenses. It argued that proceedings in a related case — Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 19-cv-1760 — had revealed a new theory: that the Boosting Catheter lacked a side opening distal to the substantially rigid portion required by the patents. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung denied the motion, finding QXMedical had not acted diligently because the defense had always been available to it; the Medtronic case did not make the defense newly available, it merely alerted QXMedical to an argument it could have raised on its own. Chief District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz overruled QXMedical's objections, agreeing that QXMedical could have raised the defense years earlier and that allowing it would severely prejudice Teleflex by necessitating additional discovery and potentially additional dispositive motion practice.
Case History After 2022
The parties agreed to a stay pending the Medtronic litigation. In February 2024, the parties stipulated to final judgment after the district court in Medtronic found all of Teleflex's asserted patents invalid. However, in December 2024, the case was reopened after the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the Medtronic case. See Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 117 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The court then set a trial date of September 29, 2025.
2025 Request for Reconsideration
On June 27, 2025, the court issued a new claim construction order in Medtronic. Claim construction is the process by which a court interprets the meaning of patent claim language. QXMedical contended that this order clarified that the asserted claims require a side opening distal to the substantially rigid portion, and that the Boosting Catheter therefore could not infringe. QXMedical acknowledged at a July 9, 2025 status conference that it had tried to raise a 'similar' argument three years earlier. It then submitted a letter pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(j) — the local procedural rule requiring court permission before filing a motion to reconsider — arguing: (1) the new defense was legally correct; and (2) it could not have raised the defense earlier because Teleflex concealed relevant information and because the defense did not crystallize until the June 2025 claim construction order.
Teleflex objected, arguing: (1) QXMedical's request was nearly identical to its 2022 request, which two judges had already rejected; and (2) allowing the new defense would require additional claim construction proceedings, expert discovery, and summary judgment briefing — severely prejudicing Teleflex just months before trial.
Ruling
Judge Provinzino denied QXMedical leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Applying Local Rule 7.1(j)'s 'compelling circumstances' standard, and citing Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988), the court explained that reconsideration serves only to correct manifest (clear and obvious) errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence — not to repeat previously made arguments or to raise arguments that could have been raised earlier. The court found no compelling circumstances: QXMedical was seeking to assert the same defense that Judges Leung and Schiltz had already refused to allow in 2022 on the ground that it was available from the outset of the litigation. The court agreed with Teleflex that QXMedical was simply too late, stating: 'If QXMédical was too late then, it is too late now.' The court also credited the continuing prejudice rationale — that Teleflex would need to redo significant portions of the litigation.
Disposition
QXMedical's request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 397) was DENIED. Trial remains scheduled for September 29, 2025.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.