Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Cardio Flow, Inc. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-3478
    ___________________________
    Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.
    Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Cardio Flow, Inc.
    Defendant - Appellee
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota
    ____________
    Submitted: March 15, 2022
    Filed: June 14, 2022
    ____________
    Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.
    Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (“CSI”) brought this action against Cardio Flow,
    Inc. (“Cardio Flow”), alleging the breach of a settlement agreement that resolved
    ownership of intellectual property rights related to atherectomy devices. Cardio
    Flow was not a named party to the settlement, however, and moved for summary
    judgment on that basis. In response, CSI asserted that principles of equitable
    estoppel and agency bound Cardio Flow to abide by the agreement. The district
    court1 rejected CSI’s arguments and dismissed its claims. We affirm.
    I.    BACKGROUND
    CSI and Cardio Flow are competitor firms in the medical device industry. CSI
    produces atherectomy devices, which remove built-up plaque from arteries. Cardio
    Flow is in the process of developing its FreedomFlow atherectomy device that is
    currently in clinical trials.
    Dr. Leonid Shturman founded the medical device company that later evolved
    into CSI, where he became the chief executive officer. Several agreements required
    Dr. Shturman to assign the intellectual property rights from his inventions to CSI.
    During his employment, Dr. Shturman discovered a new technology for atherectomy
    devices called the “Counterweight Invention.” It utilizes centrifugal forces to allow
    an atherectomy device to orbit inside an artery for improved abrasive effect.
    The Counterweight Invention has been the focus of multiple lawsuits over the
    last 15 years. Not long after Dr. Shturman came up with the idea in 2002, he resigned
    from CSI and tried to patent the technology himself. Five years later, CSI sued him
    in federal district court and filed a parallel arbitration against his nascent company,
    Shturman Medical Systems, Inc. An arbitrator deemed CSI the rightful owner of the
    Counterweight Invention. Dr. Shturman settled the federal case and transferred his
    interest in the technology to CSI.
    Despite the settlement, Dr. Shturman persisted in securing patents for orbital
    atherectomy devices. CSI again questioned his ownership, prompting Dr. Shturman
    to preemptively initiate a lawsuit in October 2009. But he died a month later, leaving
    1
    The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    the new patents’ ownership unresolved and whatever interest he had in them to his
    widow, Lela Nadirashvili.
    Gary Petrucci—a CSI board member who managed the litigation against Dr.
    Shturman—contacted Nadirashvili shortly after her husband’s death. She expressed
    dismay because she had “put all our money into [obtaining the new patents] and I’m
    broke.” Petrucci responded, “Well, send me the patents. Let me take a look at it and
    maybe I can be of some help.” Petrucci then introduced Nadirashvili to his personal
    intellectual property lawyers. Those same lawyers agreed to represent Nadirashvili
    pro bono in her effort to keep ownership of the patents. Petrucci resigned from CSI’s
    board in March 2010 and founded Cardio Flow four months later. In his deposition,
    Petrucci testified that before starting Cardio Flow, he and Nadirashvili had discussed
    that she would receive 40 percent of the company’s shares in exchange for the rights
    to her patents.
    In 2012, Nadirashvili sued CSI in the District of Minnesota for a declaratory
    judgment that she owned the new patents. She maintained that they were not covered
    by the previous arbitration because they derived from fluid inflatable counterweights
    rather than the originally developed solid counterweights. The delineation between
    fluid and solid counterweights underlaid an August 2012 settlement agreement that
    instigates this dispute.
    The settlement agreement separated the contested patents into the Nadirashvili
    Patent Portfolio and the CSI Patent Portfolio, each named for the respective assignee
    of the patent rights within them. Because the two portfolios had some overlap as to
    fluid and solid technologies, Section 3 of the settlement agreement set up inverse
    exclusive licenses. Nadirashvili conferred on CSI a “worldwide, royalty-free, paid-
    up, irrevocable exclusive right and license under the Nadirashvili Patent Portfolio to
    make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell and import rotational atherectomy devices
    or methods utilizing Solid Counterweights.” In return, CSI granted Nadirashvili an
    identical license for “devices or methods utilizing Fluid Inflatable Counterweights.”
    -3-
    Section 7 provided that Nadirashvili “may partner (which may include . . . the
    sale of the Nadirashvili Patent Portfolio to a person or entity) with any individual or
    entity to develop the Nadirashvili Patent Portfolio, including Gary Petrucci.” And
    Section 10 prohibited assignment of the settlement agreement absent written consent
    of the other party—with a lone exception:
    [E]ither party may assign, without the consent of the other party, this
    Settlement Agreement and the rights, obligation and privileges herein
    in conjunction with a sale or transfer of the respective party’s Patent
    Portfolio to a third party who has agreed, in writing promptly delivered
    to the other party, to be bound to this Agreement as if it were a party.
    The order of dismissal specified that the district court would retain jurisdiction over
    the settlement agreement.
    On November 16, 2012, Nadirashvili transferred her patent portfolio to Cardio
    Flow in exchange for shares and two monetary payments. She did not receive CSI’s
    written consent before doing so. Cardio Flow never agreed in writing or otherwise
    to be bound by the settlement agreement. According to CSI, Cardio Flow eventually
    began developing its FreedomFlow device using solid counterweights, allegedly in
    violation of the exclusive right and license.
    CSI commenced this action against Cardio Flow in Minnesota state court. The
    complaint as amended advanced claims for breach of contract, as well as declaratory
    and injunctive relief. Cardio Flow removed the case to federal court and successfully
    resisted a motion to remand. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district
    court determined that Section 3 afforded CSI only “an exclusive license to certain
    patent rights under the Nadirashvili Patent Portfolio,” not a broader exclusive right
    to practice solid counterweights generally. The district court then found that neither
    equitable estoppel nor agency theories supported binding Cardio Flow as a party to
    the settlement agreement and dismissed CSI’s complaint.
    -4-
    II.   DISCUSSION
    CSI contends that the district court erred in deciding Cardio Flow was not a
    party to the settlement agreement by either equitable estoppel or an agency
    relationship. CSI does not assert on appeal that it has the exclusive right to practice
    solid counterweights. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
    novo, construing the evidence and all reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party.
    Meyer v. McKenzie Elec. Coop., Inc., 
    947 F.3d 506
    , 508 (8th Cir. 2020). Summary
    judgment is warranted when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
    the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
    A.     Mootness
    Before reaching the merits, we first address a challenge to our jurisdiction to
    decide this appeal. Article III of the Constitution limits federal judicial power to the
    determination of “Cases” and “Controversies.” The necessity of an ongoing “dispute
    capable of judicial resolution,” U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 
    445 U.S. 388
    , 403
    (1980), must endure throughout “all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and
    appellate,” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 
    494 U.S. 472
    , 477 (1990). Cardio Flow asks
    us to dismiss this appeal as moot, arguing it would not impact the final result. See,
    e.g., In re Gretter Autoland, Inc., 
    864 F.3d 888
    , 891 (8th Cir. 2017) (“If nothing of
    practical consequence turns on the outcome of an appeal, then the appeal is moot.”).
    We disagree.
    Cardio Flow asserts that because CSI did not specifically appeal the dismissal
    of its requests for declaratory and injunctive relief and forfeited any right to damages
    below, the possibility of a remedy is foreclosed no matter what. Yet the district court
    dismissed the injunction claim on the sole ground that CSI lacked a broad exclusive
    right to practice solid counterweights. If we were to hold that a genuine fact dispute
    remains as to whether Cardio Flow became a party to the settlement agreement, CSI
    would be able to seek injunctive relief for the violation of its exclusive license to the
    solid counterweight technology in Nadirashvili’s patent portfolio. See U.S. Valves,
    -5-
    Inc. v. Dray, 
    212 F.3d 1368
    , 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by
    Gunn v. Minton, 
    568 U.S. 251
     (2013). Also, even if CSI surrendered actual damages
    in the district court (an issue we need not reach), the availability of nominal damages
    is enough to stave off mootness. Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. ___, 
    141 S. Ct. 792
    , 802 (2021); see N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of N.Y., 590
    U.S. ___, 
    140 S. Ct. 1525
    , 1536 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting) (observing “it is widely
    recognized that a claim for nominal damages precludes mootness”). In Minnesota,
    “[a]bsent proof of actual loss . . . nominal damages are recoverable for breach of [a]
    contractual obligation.” George Benz & Sons v. Hassie, 
    293 N.W. 133
    , 138 (Minn.
    1940). While a direct prayer for nominal damages does not appear in CSI’s amended
    complaint, its “averment of general damages is sufficient to state a claim for nominal
    damages.” Ins. Servs. of Beaufort, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 
    966 F.2d 847
    , 853
    (4th Cir. 1992). Mootness arises “only when it is impossible for a court to grant any
    effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union,
    Loc. 1000, 
    567 U.S. 298
    , 307 (2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    Since CSI may obtain injunctive relief or nominal damages, this case still presents a
    live controversy.2
    B.     Equitable Estoppel
    CSI first argues that the record supports the application of equitable estoppel
    to bar Cardio Flow from denying it is bound by the settlement agreement. Under
    2
    We ordered supplemental briefing on several other jurisdictional questions.
    Upon review, we conclude the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over this case
    to enforce the settlement agreement. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
    of Am., 
    511 U.S. 375
    , 381 (1994); Myers v. Richland Cnty., 
    429 F.3d 740
    , 747 (8th
    Cir. 2005). Although removal was improper under Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.
    v. Henson, 
    537 U.S. 28
    , 34 (2002), CSI waived that defect by failing to raise it within
    the first 30 days. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1447
    (c); Holbein v. TAW Enters., Inc., 
    983 F.3d 1049
    , 1059 (8th Cir. 2020) (en banc). This purely state-law breach of contract action
    does not arise under federal patent law, thereby vesting appellate jurisdiction in this
    court. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1295
    (a)(1); Inspired Dev. Grp., LLC v. Inspired Prods. Grp.,
    LLC, 
    938 F.3d 1355
    , 1364-68 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
    -6-
    Minnesota law, a litigant’s claim of equitable estoppel has three elements: (1) that
    promises or inducements were made; (2) that it reasonably relied on those promises;
    and (3) that it will suffer harm if estoppel is not applied. Heidbreder v. Carton, 
    645 N.W.2d 355
    , 371 (Minn. 2002).
    “Representation or concealment of material facts is an indispensable element
    of equitable estoppel.” W. H. Barber Co. v. McNamara-Vivant Contracting Co., 
    293 N.W.2d 351
    , 357 (Minn. 1979). CSI offers no evidence indicating that Cardio Flow,
    as opposed to Nadirashvili or Petrucci, represented or concealed a material fact and
    never argues differently on appeal. Instead, CSI suggests that equitable estoppel can
    apply without that requirement because Cardio Flow accepted the benefits from the
    settlement agreement—namely, Nadirashvili’s patents—with prior knowledge of its
    terms. The Minnesota Supreme Court rebuffed a similar theory in Lunning v. Land
    O’Lakes, 
    303 N.W.2d 452
    , 457 (Minn. 1980), when a party cited previous cases to
    argue that “representation or concealment of a material fact is no longer an essential
    element of equitable estoppel.” The state supreme court countered that “any doubts
    remaining as to [its] stance . . . were put to rest” by the clear holding in W. H. Barber.
    Id. at 458; see also Suske v. Straka, 
    39 N.W.2d 745
    , 751 (Minn. 1949) (“[O]ne who,
    either intentionally or through culpable negligence by silence . . . or by his acts and
    representations, induces another to believe that certain facts exist is estopped to deny
    the existence of such facts . . . .”). In this situation, “[o]ur duty is to conscientiously
    ascertain and apply state law, not to formulate new law based on our own notions of
    what is the better rule.” Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 
    553 F.3d 609
    , 612 (8th
    Cir. 2009). We are not free under Minnesota law to excuse CSI’s failure to establish
    that Cardio Flow represented or concealed material facts.
    CSI’s reliance on Karnitz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 
    572 F.3d 572
     (8th Cir.
    2009), misses the mark. That decision involved a claim to void a mortgage pursuant
    to Minnesota Statute § 507.02, which ordinarily “requires a mortgage on a married
    couple’s homestead to be signed by both spouses.” Id. at 574. We applied a line of
    Minnesota Supreme Court cases allowing equitable estoppel to override the statutory
    language if “(1) the nonsigning spouse consents to and has prior knowledge of the
    -7-
    transaction, (2) the nonsigning spouse retains the benefits of the transaction, and
    (3) the party seeking to invoke estoppel has sufficiently changed its position to
    invoke the equities of estoppel.” Id. at 574-75 (citing Dvorak v. Maring, 
    285 N.W.2d 675
    , 677-78 (Minn. 1979); Seitz v. Sitze, 
    10 N.W.2d 426
     (Minn. 1943); Fuller v.
    Johnson, 
    165 N.W. 874
     (Minn. 1917)). But we were careful to acknowledge that
    “the doctrine of equitable estoppel generally involves some type of
    misrepresentation.” 
    Id. at 576
    . We then expressly stated that the “retention of the
    benefits” concept applied “in the specific context of the homestead signature
    requirement of § 507.02.” Id. Given the Minnesota Supreme Court’s unequivocal
    holdings elsewhere that a representation or concealment is essential, we decline to
    extend Karnitz to supplant the usual equitable estoppel elements. We likewise reject
    CSI’s invitation to rely on decisions applying the law of states other than Minnesota.
    See LG & E Cap. Corp. v. Tenaska VI, L.P., 
    289 F.3d 1059
    , 1065 (8th Cir. 2002)
    (Nebraska law); Total Petroleum, Inc. v. Davis, 
    822 F.2d 734
    , 737-38 (8th Cir. 1987)
    (Missouri law). Equitable estoppel provides no basis to enforce the settlement
    agreement against Cardio Flow.
    C.     Agency
    CSI makes two arguments that Nadirashvili acted as Cardio Flow’s agent, thus
    binding it as a principal, when she entered into the settlement agreement.3 First, CSI
    asserts that Nadirashvili was participating in a joint venture with Petrucci. Second,
    CSI posits that Petrucci extensively controlled Nadirashvili’s lawsuit, ending in the
    settlement agreement favoring Cardio Flow. Both contentions are unpersuasive.
    A joint venture creates agency relationships among its participants. Duxbury
    v. Spex Feeds, Inc., 
    681 N.W.2d 380
    , 390 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). An undertaking
    becomes a joint venture when four distinct elements are fulfilled: “(1) contribution—
    combining either money, property, time, or skill in a common undertaking; (2) joint
    3
    CSI waived any challenge to the district court’s conclusion that Nadirashvili
    lacked actual or apparent authority to contract on Cardio Flow’s behalf by not raising
    the issue in its briefing. See Jenkins v. Winter, 
    540 F.3d 742
    , 751 (8th Cir. 2008).
    -8-
    proprietorship and control—the parties having a proprietary interest and a right of
    control over the subject matter; (3) sharing of profits—but not necessarily of losses;
    and (4) contract—either express or implied.” Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo,
    Inc., 
    203 N.W.2d 841
    , 847 (Minn. 1973).
    CSI argues that Nadirashvili worked with Petrucci to negotiate the settlement
    agreement “for the benefit of their joint venture, Cardio Flow.” The evidence belies
    that claim. “Each participant must have an equal right to direct and govern . . . every
    other participant with respect to the mutual undertaking.” Delgado v. Lohmar, 
    289 N.W.2d 479
    , 482 (Minn. 1979). Though Nadirashvili received shares and payments
    for her patents, nothing illustrates that she possessed any right—much less an equal
    right—to control Cardio Flow’s activities. Nadirashvili accepted a minority stake in
    Cardio Flow, and the record points to Petrucci alone managing its operations. More
    fundamentally, the existence of a joint venture “assum[es] that a corporation has not
    been organized” yet. Rehnberg v. Minn. Homes, Inc., 
    52 N.W.2d 454
    , 456 (Minn.
    1952). Petrucci incorporated Cardio Flow before Nadirashvili signed the settlement
    agreement. A corporation may form a joint venture with other individuals or entities,
    Hansen v. St. Paul Metro Treatment Ctr., Inc., 
    609 N.W.2d 625
    , 629 (Minn. Ct. App.
    2000), but normally cannot itself be the subject of such an endeavor. See Rehnberg,
    52 N.W.2d at 456; 46 Am. Jur. 2d Joint Ventures § 9 (2022) (explaining “as a general
    proposition, the fact that an entity is a corporation precludes finding that it is a . . .
    joint venture”).4
    The assertion that Petrucci controlled Nadirashvili’s lawsuit is equally without
    merit. CSI’s argument relies on A. Gay Jenson Farms Co. v. Cargill, Inc., 
    309 N.W.2d 285
     (Minn. 1981). There, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a debtor
    grain elevator acted as an agent for its creditor in transactions with farmers. Id. at
    293. Calling the relationship between the debtor and creditor “unique,” id., the court
    identified nine factors that demonstrated extensive control, id. at 291. It additionally
    4
    For the same reason, Cardio Flow cannot be a traditional partnership between
    Nadirashvili and Petrucci. See Minn. Stat. § 323A.0202(b) (“An association formed
    under a statute other than this chapter . . . is not a partnership under this chapter.”).
    -9-
    referenced the agency principle that “[a] creditor who assumes control of his debtor’s
    business may become liable as principal for the acts of the debtor in connection with
    the business.” Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 14O (Am. L. Inst.
    1958)).
    We later distinguished Jenson Farms. In New Millennium Consulting, Inc. v.
    United HealthCare Services, Inc., 
    695 F.3d 854
    , 859 (8th Cir. 2012), a company was
    alleged to be an agent under an extensive control theory based on another entity’s
    authority to screen, assign, and supervise its employees. When affirming summary
    judgment, we explained that no agency relationship existed because the entity was
    not a creditor of the company and lacked control over its internal affairs. Id. at 860.
    Here, the relationship between Petrucci and Nadirashvili is weaker than that
    in New Millennium and far afield from that in Jenson Farms. Petrucci did not lend
    money to Nadirashvili. She merely told him she was facing financial difficulties
    following her husband’s death, resulting in his offer to examine the patents to see if
    “there was something to be done” with them. The record at most reveals that the
    lawyers whom Petrucci introduced Nadirashvili to kept him informed about
    important terms in the settlement agreement beforehand and gave him a copy after
    execution. Petrucci and the lawyers testified that he was not involved in legal
    strategy. There is no evidence that Petrucci directed or financed the litigation in a
    way that gives rise to an inference of pervasive control over Nadirashvili’s affairs.
    No reasonable jury would find that Nadirashvili entered into the settlement
    agreement as an agent for Cardio Flow.
    III.   CONCLUSION
    Neither equitable estoppel nor agency principles bound Cardio Flow as a party
    to the settlement agreement. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -10-