QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:17-cv-01969
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In QXMedical v. Vascular Solutions, Judge Provinzino vacated the final judgment after the separate judgment supporting it was reversed and vacated.
QXMedical, LLC and the defendants and counterclaim-plaintiffs—Vascular Solutions LLC, Teleflex Life Sciences LLC, Arrow International LLC, and Teleflex LLC—were affected by the vacatur of the final judgment.
What happened
QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC involved a joint request to undo a final judgment entered on February 15, 2024. The earlier judgment favored QXMedical because a judgment in a separate case had barred the defendants’ claims.
The separate judgment was later reversed and vacated by the Federal Circuit. The court explained that Rule 60(b)(5) allows relief when a judgment is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino ordered that the final judgment in QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC be vacated under Rule 60(b)(5).
The detailed version
- QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC · No. 0:17-cv-01969
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Dec. 18, 2024
Background
The parties jointly moved for relief from the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). The court had entered a stipulated final judgment in favor of QXMedical because a final judgment in a separate case had barred all of the defendants’ claims under collateral estoppel, a rule that can prevent a party from relitigating an issue already decided.
The judgment in the separate case was later reversed and vacated by the Federal Circuit. The court explained that Rule 60(b)(5) applies when a final judgment is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, including when the earlier judgment supplied the basis for collateral estoppel.
Ruling
The court ordered that the final judgment in this case, entered as ECF No. 353, be vacated under Rule 60(b)(5). The opinion does not decide the underlying claims on their merits; it addresses the effect of the vacated judgment on which the earlier final judgment was based.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.