Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07—cv—00468-JJF Document 38 Filed 04/18/2008 Page1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ICU MEDICAL, INC., :
Plaintiff, ;
v. E Civil Action No. 07-468-JJF
RYMED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ;
Defendant. Z
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion For
Reargument of Memorandum Order Denying Motion to Transfer Venue
(D.I. 25). For the reasons discussed, the Motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
On July 27, 2007, Plaintiff, ICU Medical, Inc. (“ICU”),
filed this patent infringement action alleging Defendant, RyMed
Technologies, Inc. (“RyMed”), had infringed four U.S. patents
held by ICU: U.S. patents 5,685,866 (“the ‘866 patent"),
5,873,862 (“the ‘862 patent"), 5,928,204 (“the ‘204 patent"), and
6,572,592 (“the ‘592 patent"). ICU is incorporated in Delaware,
and its principal place of business is in San Clemente,
California. Defendant, RyMed Technologies, Inc. (“RyMed”), is
incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in
Franklin, Tennessee.
On October 28, 2007, RyMed filed an action in the Central
District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that the
four patents asserted by ICU in this litigation are not infringed

Case 1:07—cv—00468-JJF Document 38 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 2 of 4
by RyMed's current product, or its new modified boot valve
product, and that the four patents asserted by ICU in this
litigation are invalid; and damages for federal and state
trademark infringement, Lanham Act violations, federal and state
unfair competition, tortious interference with contract, and
tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (the
“declaratory judgment action"). On October 29, 2007, RyMed filed
a Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the
Central District of California. (D.I. 10). The Court issued a
Memorandum Order denying RyMed's Motion on January 23, 2008.
(D.I. 24.) RyMed subsequently filed the pending motion for
reargument. (D.I. 25.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Although not explicitly provided for in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Local Rule 7.1.5 provides for the filing of
reargument motions. See D. Del. L.R. 7.1.5. The decision to
grant a motion for reargument lies within the discretion of the
district court; however, such motions should only be granted
sparingly.
DISCUSSION
By its Motion, RyMed contends that it is entitled to
reargument because the Court “misapprehended or overlooked
certain key factors," including the complexity of prior
litigation in the Central District of California regarding three
2

Case 1:O7—cv—OO468-JJF Document 38 Filed O4/18/2008 Page 3 of 4
of the four patents at issue here, as well as RyMed's non—
infringement claim for its new modified boot valve product and
other causes of action found only in the California action. (D.I.
26 at 1.) RyMed further contends that a “recently discovered”
“key third party witness" is “unwilling to travel to Delaware for
trial, but is within the subpoena power of the Central District
of California." (Id. at 3.) RyMed contends that this “new
information... significantly shifts the balance of private and
public interest factors in favor of RyMed.” (Id. at 1.)
Section 1404(a) vests district courts with broad discretion
to determine whether convenience and fairness considerations
weigh in favor of a transfer. Stewart Organization Inc. v. Ricoh
Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988). In its determination that a transfer
was not appropriate, the Court considered the six private
interests and six public interests identified in Jumara v. State
Farm Insurance Co., 55, F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995), and
concluded that RyMed did not meet its burden of demonstrating
that these factors strongly favored transfer so as to overturn
ICU's choice of forum. By its motion, RyMed largely reiterates
its earlier contentions that the Court did not find persuasive.
Rymed suggests that ICU's decision to file this action in
Delaware was motivated by nefarious intentions. On the other
hand, ICU challenges the veracity of the “new evidence" set forth
by RyMed. Veracity aside, the Court finds the reluctance of one
3

Case 1:07—cv—0O468-JJF Document 38 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 4 of 4
third—party witness to travel to Delaware is not substantial
enough to change the Court’s decision. Accordingly, the Court
will deny RyMed's Motion for Reargument.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion
For Reargument of Memorandum Order Denying Motion to Transfer
Venue (D.l. 25) is DENIED.
(}»·"¤#v~ April Z§% 2008 UN D ST T ISTRICT GE
4