Molnlycke Health Care US, LLC v. Greenwood Marketing, LLC
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-03719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Molnlycke v. Greenwood: Judge Seibel ordered a conference and a response to a discovery letter without deciding whether samples must be produced.
The order directly affected the plaintiffs, Molnlycke Health Care US, LLC and Brock USA, LLC, by requiring them to respond to Greenwood’s letter. It also set a conference concerning Greenwood Marketing, LLC’s anticipated motion to compel production of product samples.
What happened
In Molnlycke Health Care US, LLC v. Greenwood Marketing, LLC, Greenwood asked the court to require production of samples of products that allegedly practice an asserted patent. Greenwood argued the samples could help it challenge Molnlycke’s potential claim for lost-profit damages.
Molnlycke had objected that the samples were irrelevant, beyond the patent claims at issue, or outside its control, and said documents would provide the necessary information. The parties met and discussed the dispute, but Molnlycke maintained its objections and refused to produce the samples.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered a conference for May 1, 2023, to discuss the issues raised in Greenwood’s letter and directed the plaintiffs to respond by April 12. The court did not decide whether the samples must be produced.
The detailed version
- Molnlycke Health Care US, LLC v. Greenwood Marketing, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-03719
- Cathy Seibel
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
The opinion text consists primarily of Greenwood Marketing, LLC, doing business as Restorative Medical, counsel’s letter requesting a pre-motion conference. Greenwood sought permission to pursue a motion compelling production of samples of Molnlycke Health Care US, LLC’s patient-positioning products and licensed third-party products that allegedly practice United States Patent No. 9,120,666.
Greenwood had served a document request seeking two samples of each plaintiff’s product, or licensed third-party product, allegedly practicing any claim of the asserted patents. Molnlycke objected that the request was irrelevant, was not limited to the asserted claims, and sought products outside its control. Molnlycke stated that it would not search for or produce responsive samples.
Parties’ Positions
Greenwood argued that the products were relevant to its defense against Molnlycke’s claim for damages. In particular, Greenwood stated that Molnlycke might rely on product sales to show demand for the patented product and support a claim for lost profits. Greenwood sought to inspect the products to determine whether they actually practice the patent. It also argued that licensed third-party products should be treated as within Molnlycke’s control if the applicable license agreements gave Molnlycke the right to obtain samples.
Molnlycke maintained that samples were irrelevant and that information about the products could be determined from documents produced in response to another request. The opinion text states that the parties met and conferred several times but did not resolve the dispute.
Court’s Action
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered that the court would hold a conference on May 1, 2023, at 11 a.m. in Courtroom 421 to discuss the issues raised in Greenwood’s letter. The court also directed the plaintiffs to respond to the letter by April 12, 2023.
The text does not state that the court granted or denied a motion to compel, and it does not decide whether Molnlycke must produce the requested samples. The court’s action was limited to scheduling the conference and requiring a response.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.