COPAN ITALIA SPA et al v. PURITAN MEDICAL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
COPAN ITALIA S.P.A. and 	)
COPAN DIAGNOSTICS INC., 	)
)
Plaintiffs 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:18-cv-00218-SDN
)
PURITAN MEDICAL PRODUCTS 	)
COMPANY LLC et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER
This patent infringement case between two competing manufacturers of
flocked swabs used for biological specimen collection began in 2018 and was all but
ready for trial when the COVID-19 global pandemic upended the litigation. 	Much
has happened in the intervening years, with both parties scaling up production to
meet the massive demand for COVID-19 testing swabs, but, for a variety of reasons,
final resolution of this now long-pending matter has remained elusive. 	As things
currently stand, Puritan is appealing this Court’s recent denial of its motion for
partial summary judgment, in which it argued that it is entitled to PREP Act
immunity from Copan’s infringement claims relating to its government-ordered
production of flocked swabs during the pandemic.
Notwithstanding the pending interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit,
Copan has filed a motion to amend the scheduling order seeking to reopen fact and
expert discovery to prepare for a trial as soon as this autumn. 	See generally
Case 1:18-cv-00218-SDN Document 345 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
ECF No. 326. 	Puritan opposes Copan’s proposed discovery plan, arguing that its
pending appeal divests this Court of jurisdiction to order it to produce the discovery
Copan seeks related to its pandemic production of swabs. See ECF No. 329 at 1, 4-5,
7. But Puritan agrees that the case can be trial ready “in short order” even while its
“PREP Act appeal is pending,” and suggests that all the parties really need is updated
financial information and the opportunity to take expert depositions. Id. at 6. I held
oral argument on these competing proposals on February 5, 2026, and took Copan’s
motion under advisement.
I understand the parties’ desire to proceed to trial sooner rather than later and
appreciate the risks that further delay may entail—memories fade, experts retire,
etc. 	But I cannot see a workable path to trial while the interlocutory appeal is
pending. Copan’s proposed reopening of discovery is bound to create all manner of
discovery 	disputes, 	the 	resolution 	of 	which 	will 	risk 	intruding 	on 	appellate
jurisdiction.1 	Puritan’s suggested course, on the other hand, brushes aside the
significance of everything that has happened since the pandemic and Copan’s
potential entitlement to further discovery. 	And both proposals fail to adequately
grapple with the inefficiency and difficulty of potentially bifurcated trials on Copan’s
claims.
In contrast, waiting for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Puritan’s interlocutory
appeal will crystallize the issues, inform the scope of any reopened discovery, and
1 I firmly reject Copan’s suggestion that Puritan’s appeal is so meritless that this Court is not divested
of any jurisdiction. See ECF No. 331 at 6; see also ECF No. 339 (an order by the Federal Circuit denying
Copan’s motion to dismiss Puritan’s appeal on jurisdictional grounds).
Case 1:18-cv-00218-SDN Document 345 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
avoid jurisdictional problems and the possibility of inefficient bifurcated proceedings.
Accordingly, 	Copan’s 	motion 	is 	DENIED, 	and 	the 	case 	is 	STAYED 	pending
resolution of the interlocutory appeal. 	The parties are nevertheless encouraged to
continue to exchange information and resolve issues like the unavailability of experts
during the pendency of the appeal so that, when the stay is lifted, the case may
proceed as efficiently as possible toward resolution. 	Upon receipt of the Federal
Circuit’s mandate, the Clerk’s Office is requested to schedule a conference of counsel
to discuss reestablishing deadlines.
SO ORDERED.
NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may
serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to review by the District Court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated: February 6, 2026
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:18-cv-00218-SDN Document 345 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>