Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Masimo Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., C.A. Nos. 09-080-LPS-MPT, 11-742-LPS-MPT (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2013).

Masimo Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., C.A. Nos. 09-080-LPS-MPT, 11-742-LPS-MPT (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2013).

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45|Likes:
Published by YCSTBlog
claim construction thynge
claim construction thynge

More info:

Published by: YCSTBlog on Sep 05, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/19/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MASIMO CORPORATION,Plaintiff,
v.
C.
A. No. 09-080-LPS-MPT
C.
A. No. 11-742-LPS-MPTPHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTHAMERICA CORPORATION and Consolidated CasesPHILIPS MEDIZIN SYSTEME BOBLINGEN:GMBH,Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I.
INTRODUCTION
This
is
a patent infringement case. Plaintiff Masimo Corporation ("Masimo") anddefendants Philips Electronics North American Corporation and Philips MedizinSysteme Boblingen GMBH (collectively, "Philips") manufacture competing products
in
the field
of
pulse oximetry. Pulse oximetry allows for non-invasive measurement
of
theoxygen levels
in
a medical patient's hemoglobin.Generally, pulse oximetry operates via a sensor placed over a thin section
of
apatient's body, such as the fingertip or earlobe
of
an adult, or the foot
of
an infant. Thesensor emits red and infrared light through a cross-section
of
the patient's tissue andmeasures the amount
of
light absorbed. Using various algorithms, a monitor thenprocesses the signal and calculates the patient's oxygenation level. Pulse oximetrysystems are standard equipment
in
many clinical settings, either as stand-alonedevices, or more commonly, as components
of
integrated multi-parameter patientmonitors which track pulse, temperature, and other physiological vital signs.
 
II.
CLAIMS-AT-ISSUE
This litigation involves seven patents asserted by Masimo and one patentasserted by Philips.
1
Ill.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
"The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaningas understood by a person
of
ordinary skill
in
the art when read
in
the context
of
thespecification and prosecution history."
2
The Federal Circuit has stated "[t]here are onlytwo exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts ashis own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope
of
a claim termeither
in
the specification or during prosecution."
3
"To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must 'clearly set forth a definition ofthe disputed claim term' other than its plain and ordinary meaning."
4
"It is not enoughfor a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word
in
the samemanner
in
all embodiments, the patentee must 'clearly express
an
intent' to redefine the
1
Masimo's asserted representative claims are claims
10,
22, 23, 26,
and 48
of
U.S. Patent
No.
6,157,850 ("the '850 Patent"), claims 10, 12 and 14
of
U.S. Patent
No.
7,509,154 ("the '154 Patent"},claims 5 and 8
of
U.S. Patent
No.
7,530,955 ("the '955 Patent"}, claims
3,
5, 8,
14, 16, 19, 22, and 23
of
U.S. Patent
No.
8,019,400 ("the '400 Patent"}, claims
7,
15, 16, 20, 21, 24,
30,
and
31
of
U.S. Patent
No.
8,128,572 ("the '572 Patent"), claims
4,
7,
and 10
of
U.S. Patent
No.
7,530,949 ("the '949 Patent"), andclaim 1
of
U.S. Patent
No.
6,002,952 ("the '952 Patent"). Philips asserts claims 10-13
of
U.S. Patent
No.
5,337,745 ("the '745 Patent"). There are no claim construction disputes regarding the '952 patent.
2
Thorner
v.
Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC,
669 F
3d
1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing
Phillips
v.
AWH
Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en bane));
see a/so
Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1313 ("Wehave made clear
...
that the ordinary and customary meaning
of
a claim term
is
the meaning that theterm would have to a person of ordinary skill
in
the art
in
question at the time
of
the invention, i.e., as ofthe effective filing date
of
the patent application." (citing
lnnova/Pure Water, Inc.
v.
Safari Water Filtration
Sys.,
Inc.,
381
F.3d
1111,1116
(Fed. Cir. 2004}).
3
Thorner,
669 F 3d at 1365 (citing
Vitronics Corp.
v.
Conceptronic, Inc.,
90 F 3d 1576, 1580 (Fed.Cir. 1996}).
4
/d.
(quoting CCS
Fitness,
Inc.
v.
Brunswick Corp.,
288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
2
 
term."
5
The standard for disavowal of claim scope
is
similarly exacting. "Wherethe specification makes clear that the invention does not include aparticular feature, that feature is deemed to
be
outside the reach
of
theclaims of the patent, even though the language
of
the claims, read withoutreference to the specification, might be considered broad enough toencompass the feature
in
question."
SciMed Life Sys., Inc.
v.
AdvancedCardiovascularSys., Inc.,
242 F.3d 1337,
1341
(Fed. Cir. 2001). "Thepatentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary andaccustomed meaning
of
a claim term by including
in
the specificationexpressions
of
manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a cleardisavowal
of
claim scope."
Teleflex, Inc.
v.
Ficosa
N.
Am. Corp.,
299 F.3d1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
6
As with its explanation of a patentee acting as its own lexicographer, the Federal Circuitstated "[i]t
is
likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodimentscontain a particular limitation."
7
The court concluded: "[w)e do not read limitations fromthe specification into claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.To constitute disclaimer, there must
be
a clear and unmistakable disclaimer."
8
A.
Disputed Claim Terms
in
Masimo's Patents
1.
scan
of
a
plurality
of
possible values for said physiological parameter
('850patent, claim 45)Masimo's proposed construction
is:
"examination
of
more than one possiblevalue for the physiological parameter."Philips' proposed construction is: "examination of each
of
the plurality ofpossible values for the physiological parameter."
2008)).
Claim 45
of
the '850 patent recites:
5
/d.
(quoting
Helmsderfer
v.
Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
527 F.3d 1379,
1381
(Fed. Cir.
6
/d.
at 1366.
7
/d.
8
/d.
at 1366-67.
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->