Body Science LLC v. Boston Scientific Corp.
846 F. Supp. 2d 980
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Plaintiff Body Science holds U.S. patents 7,215,991 and 6,289,238 on wireless medical diagnosis and monitoring equipment.
- Defendants Philips, Boston Scientific, Polar, and A&D are Delaware or California corporations; LifeWatch is non-moved defendant.
- Plaintiff alleges infringement of the patents-in-suit by over seventy-six accused products across five defendants.
- Defendants move to sever and transfer under Rule 20, Rule 21, and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Court concludes joinder is improper, severs the four moving defendants, and transfers each to a different venue; LifeWatch and Body Science remain in Illinois for status planning.
- Court also addresses a motion to disqualify Boston Scientific’s counsel, which may be moot after severance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder under Rule 20(a) is proper. | Plaintiff argues common transaction/occurrence due to shared patents and related defenses. | Defendants contend unrelated acts infringing same patent do not satisfy Rule 20(a). | Joinder improper; claims severed. |
| Whether consolidation is appropriate. | Consolidation would promote efficiency, sharing documents and witnesses. | consolidation would be inefficient given multiple unrelated products. | No consolidation; court declined to consolidate. |
| Whether transfer under 1404(a) is appropriate for each severed case. | Plaintiff argues forum for all defendants is suitable for discovery and use of shared patents. | Each transferee forum is more convenient given where activities occurred. | Transfers granted to MA (Philips), MN (Boston Scientific), CA (A&D), and EDNY (Polar). |
| Effect of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act on joinder. | Act supports joinder of accused infringers. | Act abrogates minority views permitting joinder of unrelated infringers. | Act favors majority view; joinder restricted; severance proper. |
| Disqualification of counsel for Boston Scientific. | Winston & Strawn conflict due to prior Motorola representation. | No prejudice shown; transfer moot any need. | Motion denied without prejudice as moot pending transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Sunrise Express, 209 F.3d 1008 (7th Cir. 2000) (broad discretion on joinder and Rule 20 actions; common transaction requirement strict)
- Anchor Wall Sys., Inc., 55 F. Supp. 2d 871 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (location of evidence and parties influences transfer decisions; weighs toward transfer)
- In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (patent venue and joinder considerations in transfer analysis)
- Barzingus v. Wilhelm, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (precedent for commonality requirements in joinder)