QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:17-cv-01969
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In QXMedical v. Vascular Solutions, Judge Provinzino denied QXMedical permission to seek reconsideration of a 2019 patent infringement ruling to assert a defense it could have raised years earlier.
Medical device companies involved in patent infringement disputes, particularly plaintiffs seeking to raise new defenses long after summary judgment rulings have been entered. This order underscores that courts in the District of Minnesota will hold parties to a high standard before allowing reconsideration of old rulings, especially close to trial.
What happened
QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC (and related defendants collectively called 'Teleflex') is a patent case filed in 2017 in which QXMedical sought a court declaration that its Boosting Catheter did not infringe Teleflex's patents. In October 2019, the court ruled that the Boosting Catheter did infringe certain patent claims. QXMedical now wants to revisit that ruling by asserting a new non-infringement defense — essentially arguing that a key part of its device is positioned in a way that cannot infringe the patents — based on a claim construction order issued in a related case in June 2025.
This is not the first time QXMedical has tried to add this defense. In 2022, it sought to raise a nearly identical argument and was denied by two different judges, both of whom found that QXMedical could have raised the defense years earlier and simply chose not to. The case was later stayed and partially resolved based on a related court ruling, but that ruling was reversed on appeal, bringing the case back to life with a trial now scheduled for September 29, 2025.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino denied QXMedical's request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration. Under the court's local rules, a party must show 'compelling circumstances' to even seek reconsideration, and reconsideration is meant only to fix clear legal or factual errors or to introduce newly discovered evidence — not to revive arguments that could have been made earlier. Judge Provinzino found that QXMedical failed to meet that standard, agreeing with Teleflex that allowing the new defense this close to trial would cause significant prejudice, requiring new expert testimony, additional discovery, and potentially new pretrial motions.
The detailed version
- QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC · No. 0:17-cv-01969
- Laura M. Provinzino
- July 30, 2025
Background
QXMedical filed this lawsuit in June 2017, seeking a declaratory judgment — a court declaration — that its Boosting Catheter did not infringe any patents held by defendants Vascular Solutions, LLC, Arrow International LLC, Teleflex LLC, and Teleflex Life Sciences LLC (collectively 'Teleflex'). On October 2, 2019, the court granted Teleflex partial summary judgment (a ruling in Teleflex's favor before trial on undisputed facts), holding that the Boosting Catheter infringed claims 25, 36, 52, and 53 of Teleflex's RE45,776 patent.
Prior Attempt to Add the Same Defense (2022)
Nearly three years after the summary judgment ruling, on April 6, 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 positioned distal to (further from the center of the body than) the substantially rigid portion of the device. QXMedical claimed it could not have discovered this defense until March 21, 2022, when the court in that related case denied Teleflex a preliminary injunction (an emergency court order).
United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung denied QXMedical's motion, finding that nothing had ever prevented QXMedical from raising this defense at the outset and that the Medtronic proceedings merely 'tipped off' QXMedical to an argument it could have made on its own. Chief United States District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz overruled QXMedical's objections, agreeing that QXMedical 'could have raised its proposed new defense years ago' and that the fact another party raised a similar argument in a different case did not make the defense newly available. Judge Schiltz also stressed that allowing the defense would require additional discovery and possibly additional dispositive-motion practice, causing severe prejudice to Teleflex.
Intervening Events: Stay, Stipulated Judgment, and Reopening
The parties agreed to a stay shortly after the 2022 rulings, largely to await resolution of the Medtronic case. In February 2024, they stipulated to a final judgment after the Medtronic court found all of Teleflex's asserted patents invalid. The case was reopened on December 18, 2024, after the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Medtronic decision and remanded it for further proceedings. See Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 117 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Following a January 2025 status conference, the court scheduled trial for September 29, 2025.
The June 2025 Claim Construction Order and QXMedical's New Request
On June 27, 2025, the court issued a new claim construction order (a ruling interpreting the language of patent claims) in the Medtronic case. At a July 9, 2025 status conference in this case, QXMedical argued that this claim construction order — addressing the meaning of 'substantially rigid portion' — crystallized a new non-infringement defense: that the Boosting Catheter cannot infringe claims requiring the side opening to be distal to the substantially rigid portion because, on the Boosting Catheter, the distal end of the twin-wire pushrod is distal to the proximal side opening. QXMedical sought permission under Local Rule 7.1(j) to file a motion asking the court to reconsider the October 2019 summary judgment order and to allow it to assert this defense at trial.
The court allowed QXMedical to submit a letter brief on the issue. QXMedical argued that Teleflex had effectively concealed relevant information during earlier litigation and that the non-infringement defense only became clear with the June 2025 claim construction ruling. Teleflex opposed, arguing (1) that QXMedical's current request was nearly identical to the one denied in 2022, and (2) that allowing the defense now — just months before trial — would require revisiting which claims are asserted, conducting additional claim construction, and redoing expert discovery and summary judgment, causing extreme prejudice.
The Court's Ruling
Judge Provinzino denied QXMedical leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Legal Standard
Under Local Rule 7.1(j) of the District of Minnesota, a party must obtain leave of court before filing a motion to reconsider, and leave requires a showing of 'compelling circumstances.' Additionally, under Eighth Circuit precedent, a motion to reconsider serves only 'a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.' Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988). A motion to reconsider cannot be used to repeat previously made arguments or to raise arguments that could have been made earlier.
Application
The court found no compelling circumstances. QXMedical's current request is substantively the same as its 2022 request, which two judges already denied on the ground that the defense was available from the beginning of the case. QXMedical acknowledged at the July 9, 2025 hearing that it had tried to raise a similar argument three years ago. The court also agreed with Teleflex that allowing the defense now, just months before trial and years after the summary judgment ruling, would cause significant prejudice — requiring additional claim construction, expert discovery, and potentially additional pretrial motion practice. The court's conclusion was straightforward: 'If QXMedical was too late then, it is too late now.'
Disposition
QXMedical's request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 397) is DENIED. Trial remains set for September 29, 2025.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.