Free Objections - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:98-cv-00478-SLR Document 373 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) -
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, ) C` A` NO' 98 478 (SLR)
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC. (formerly )
known as SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC.), and )
MEDINOL, LTD. )
)
Defendants. )
MEDTRONIC’S OBJECTIONS TO MEDINOL LTD.’S BILL OF COSTS
Plaintiff Medtronic Vascular Inc. ("Medtronic") hereby objects to
Items I and III of Defendant Medinol Ltd.’s ("Medino1") Bill of Costs (D.I. 371), pursuant to D.
Del. LR 54.l(a)(3).
Item I. Deposition Costs
Medinol’s request for $15,770.20 it allegedly incurred in connection with certain
depositions transcripts it cited in its claim constmction and summary judgment briefs must be
denied because Medinol does not even try to satisfy the applicable standard for recovering such
costs.
D. Del. LR 54.1(b)(3) permits a prevailing party to recover the costs of taking a
deposition only "where a substantial portion of the deposition is used in the resolution of a
material issue in the case." (emphasis added) Although Medinol argues that it incurred the costs
I Medtronic does not object to Item III, Medinol’s request for $55 to obtain a certified copy
of the patent file wrapper.

Case 1:98-cv-00478-SLR Document 373 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 4
in connection "with depositions that were used in the resolution of a material issue in the case"
(D.I. 371 at 1), it does not even purport to argue that it used a substantial portion of the
deposition transcripts for which it seeks costs.
It is not surprising that Medinol does not address the "substantial portion"
requirement because it plainly cannot meet it. The chart below demonstrates the miniscule
portion of the deposition transcripts on which Medinol actually relied in its summary judgment
and Mar/crnan briefs.
Dcponent Number of Pages Cited Total Pages Total Days
Jeffrey Allen 2 720 pages 3 days
Michael Boneau 12 714 pages 4 days
Bradley Jendersee 9 488 pages 2 days
Robert Lashinski 2 429 pages 2 days
Sunil Saigal 9 884 pages 3 days
Robert Wagoner 12 1349 pages 4 days
Because Medinol does not and cannot meet the requirements of D. Del. LR
54.1(b)(3), its request for recovery of deposition costs must be denied.
Item II. Mar/{man Exhibit Costs
Medinol’s request for $18,143.97 of its share of the costs it claims to have
incurred in preparing demonstrative exhibits and the preparation of TIFF images from various
depositions for the Markman hearing also must be denied. Under D. Del. LR 54.1(b)(5), a
prevailing party may only recover "[t]he cost of copies of an exhibit necessarily attached to a
document required to be filed and served..." Further, costs of a copy are taxable when the
document is admitted into evidence, but the "cost of copies obtained for counsel’s own use is not
taxable." Id. All Medinol argues is that the Court "relied on the oral arguments presented at this
hearing to detennine claim construction of the patents—in suit. . ." (D.I. 372 1110). That is not the
standard, however. The demonstrative exhibits Medinol presented to the Court at the Markman
2

Case 1:98-cv-00478-SLR Document 373 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 3 of 4
hearing were not necessarily attached to a document that was required t0 be filed and served.
Nor were these copies admitted into evidence. That Medinol chose to prepare demonstrative
exhibits to illustrate its arguments at the Markman hearing does not entitle Medinol to recover
these costs. Its request should be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Medtronic respectfully requests that Items I and II of
Medinol’s Bill of Costs be denied.
Moiuzis, N1cHoLs, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
/s/ Karen Jacobs Louden
Karen Jacobs Louden (#2881)
1201 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
(302) 658-9200
Attorneys for Defendants Medtronic Vascular,
Inc. and Medtronic USA, Inc.
November 26, 2007
131334s
3

Case 1:98-cv-00478-SLR Document 373 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on November 26, 2007, I electronically
filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of
such filing to the following:
Josy W. Ingersoll
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
Richard D. Kirk
The Bayard Finn
I also certify that copies were caused to be served on November 26, 2007, upon
the following in the manner indicated:
BY HAND
Josy W. Ingersoll
Karen L. Pascale
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Richard D. Kirk
Stephen B. Brauerman
THE BAYARD FIRM
222 Delaware Avenue, Ste. 900
P.O. Box 25130
Wilmington, DE 19899
/s/ Karen Jacobs Louden
Karen Jacobs Louden (#2881)