ReCor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co.

Background

ReCor moved to compel discovery concerning Medtronic’s Symplicity System and Covidien’s OneShot renal-denervation system. The requested Symplicity discovery included documents about unsuccessful or ineffective treatments, failures, complications, adverse patient outcomes, complaints, design changes, product failures, and quality issues. It also included an interrogatory about Medtronic’s Global SYMPLICITY Registry and certain clinical programs, two proposed email-search terms, and a deposition topic concerning product failures and customer, consumer, or patient complaints.

ReCor also sought discovery about Covidien’s OneShot system, asserting that it was relevant to enablement and damages. The opinion states that OneShot was never commercialized in the United States.

Symplicity Discovery

The court found the Symplicity discovery relevant. It explained that Symplicity’s quality could bear on ReCor’s reasonable-royalty damages because evidence about the quality of an available alternative could affect the royalty analysis. The quality of Medtronic’s product could also bear on Medtronic’s lost-profits claim, including whether Symplicity was an acceptable substitute and how much demand Medtronic could have captured in a hypothetical world without ReCor’s allegedly infringing product.

The court rejected Medtronic’s argument that the requested discovery was an all-or-nothing proposition or that no search terms could be crafted. It ordered Medtronic to use the proposed search terms for Heidrun Behrmann and Julie Trudel. It also ordered Medtronic to answer Interrogatory No. 16 regarding the principal or primary facts and circumstances, rather than “all facts and circumstances.”

For Requests for Production Nos. 66, 67, and 68, and for information relevant to Rule 30(b)(6) deposition Topic 71, the court ordered Medtronic to propose search terms for custodians it had already identified as likely to possess responsive documents. Medtronic also had to propose non-custodial sources and explain how it would conduct reasonable searches there. The parties were ordered to meet and confer, and, if they could not agree, to file a further joint discovery letter brief by April 4, 2025. The court stated that the searches need not find every responsive document but must be reasonable and proportional.

Accordingly, ReCor’s motion to compel concerning Symplicity treatment outcomes was GRANTED as stated above.

Covidien’s OneShot System

The court denied the motion concerning Covidien’s OneShot system. On enablement, ReCor argued that it needed to learn whether Covidien had tested embodiments of the asserted patents and whether they worked. The court found that the requested documents would be relevant to enablement only if Covidien had actually been trying to practice the asserted patents, and that ReCor offered no reason to think Covidien was doing so. The court therefore considered the relevance of that discovery speculative.

The opinion also addresses damages and states that OneShot was never commercialized in the United States. The order concludes: “ReCor’s motion to compel as to the Covidien OneShot renal denervation system is DENIED.”

Disposition

The court granted ReCor’s motion to compel concerning Symplicity treatment outcomes as specified in the order and denied the motion to compel concerning Covidien’s OneShot system. Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order on March 31, 2025.