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
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Volcano Corp. v. St. Jude Medical, Cardiovascular and Ablation Technologies Division, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 13-687-RGA (D. Del. Jan. 24, 2014).

Volcano Corp. v. St. Jude Medical, Cardiovascular and Ablation Technologies Division, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 13-687-RGA (D. Del. Jan. 24, 2014).

Ratings: (0)|Views: 87 |Likes:
Published by Alfred Reyes
claim construction
claim construction

More info:

Published by: Alfred Reyes on Feb 04, 2014
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

02/04/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN
THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF
DEL W RE
VOLCANO CORPORATION,
v
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, ST. JUDE MEDICAL, CARDIOVASCULAR
ND BL TION
TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION, INC., ST. JUDE MEDICAL,
C RDIOLOGY
DIVISION, INC., ST. JUDE MEDICAL, U.S. DIVISION, ST.
JUDE
MEDICAL S.C., INC., and ST.
JUDE
MEDIC L
SYSTEMS AB, Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs. Civil Action No. 13-687-RGA
MEMOR NDUM
OPINION Thomas Lee Halkowski, Esq., FISH RICHARDSON, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Frank
E
Scherkenbach, Esq. (argued), FISH RICHARDSON, P.C., Boston, MA; Todd G. Miller, Esq., FISH RICHARDSON, P.C, San Diego, CA; Michael M. Rosen, Esq., FISH RICHARDSON, P.C, San Diego, CA; Ryan O Connor, Esq., FISH RICHARDSON, P.C, San Diego, CA; Christina Brown-Marshall, Esq. (argued), FISH RICHARDSON, P.C, Redwood City, CA. Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Volcano Corporation. Steven
J
Fineman, Esq., RICHARDS,
L YTON
FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, DE; John Allcock, Esq. (argued),
DL PIPER
LLP,
New
York, NY; Stuart Pollack, Esq. (argued), DLA PIPER LLP,
New
York, NY; Nicholas
F
Aldrich, Jr., Esq.,
DL PIPER
LLP,
New
York, NY; Marc
E
Miller, Esq.,
DL PIPER
LLP,
New
York, NY. Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs St. Jude Medical, Cardiovascular and Ablation Technologies Division, Inc., St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc., St. Jude Medical, U.S. Division, St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. and St. Jude Medical Systems AB.
January~
2014
 
Pending before this Court is the issue
of
claim construction
of
one disputed term found in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,419,647 (' 647 patent ) and 8,419,648 ( '648 patent ).
1
I
BACKGROUND
On April 16, 2013, Volcano filed a patent infringement action against St. Jude Medical, Cardiovascular and Ablation Technologies Division, Inc., St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc., St. Jude Medical, U.S. Division, St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. and St. Jude Medical Systems AB. (D.I. 1
.
St. Jude convinced the Court that construction
of
a single term could be dispositive
ofVolcano s
literal infringement case (D.I.
16
at 7-10), and the Court, relying on this representation, granted an early claim construction hearing for that lone term. (D.I. 27). The Court has considered the Parties' Joint Claim Construction Brief (D.I. 51), appendix (D.I. 52), and oral argument on November 18,2013. (D.I. 53).
II
LEGALSTANDARD
It
is a bedrock principle
of
patent law that the claims
of
a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.
Phillips
v
AWHCorp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (internal quotation marks omitted). '[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources
in
light
ofthe
statutes and policies that inform patent law.'
SoftView LLCv. Apple Inc.,
2013 WL 4758195, at
*1
(D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting
Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1324). When construing patent claims, a matter
of
law, a court considers the literal language
of
the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history.
Markman
v
Westview Instruments, Inc.,
52 F.3d 967,977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane),
a.ff d,
517 U.S. 370
1
The '647 and '648 patents share a common specification. The disputed term is construed identically in both patents.
2
 
(1996).
Of
these sources, the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning
of
a disputed term.
Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Furthermore, the words
of
a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning [which is] the meaning that the term would have to a person
of
ordinary skill in the art in question at the time
of
the invention, i.e., as
of
the effective filing date
of
the patent application.
Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1312-13 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). [T]he ordinary meaning
of
a claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.
/d.
at 1321 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In
some cases, the ordinary meaning
of
claim language as understood
by
a person
of
skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application
of
the widely accepted meaning
of
commonly understood words.
/d.
at 1314 (internal citations omitted). A court
may
consider extrinsic evidence, which consists
of
all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, in order to assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning
of
terms to one skilled in the art and
how
the invention works.
d.
at 1317-19 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, extrinsic evidence is less reliable and less useful in claim construction than the patent and its prosecution history.
/d.
Finally, [a] claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it defines terms in the context
of
the whole patent.
Renishaw P
L
v.
Marposs Societa per Azioni,
158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
t
follows that
a
claim interpretation that would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation.
Osram
GmbH
v.
Int
I
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

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