OUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.CV 08-8351 ODW (PLAx)DateFebruary 1, 2010Title
Melvin Valkner, et al. v. Integrated Medical Systems, Inc.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 10
Present: The Honorable Otis D. Wright II, United States District JudgeRaymond NealNot Presentn/aDeputy ClerkCourt ReporterTape No.Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):Not PresentAttorneys Present for Defendant(s):Not Present
Proceedings (In Chambers): Claim Construction Order; Denying Motions forSummary Judgment [34; 38]I. INTRODUCTION
Generally speaking, the parties to this dispute sell devices used to transport persons in needof medical assistance. Plaintiffs Melvin and Luanne Valkner (“Plaintiffs”) are the purportedassignees of U.S. Patent No. 5,749,374 (“the ‘374 patent”), a patient-transport and treatmentapparatus. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Integrated Medical Systems, Inc. (“Defendant” or“IMS”) makes and sells litters and other medical devices that infringe Plaintiffs’ ‘374 patent.On October 16, 2009, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, whereinPlaintiffs requested judgment as a matter of law as to their claim of infringement, and Defendant fora judgment of non-infringement and patent invalidity. In considering the papers submitted insupport of an in opposition to their motions, however, the Court concluded that the crux of theparties’ dispute revolves around the construction of the ‘374 patent’s first claim. For that reason,the Court continued the hearing on these matters in order to more fully address the construction of Claim 1. Thereafter, the Court ordered supplemental claim construction briefing. After consideringthe parties’ construction briefs and all other relevant documents, along with the parties’ arguments
1
See
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
, 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d., 517 U.S. 370, 372(1996).
2
The Court has included only those facts that are relevant to construction of the disputed claim in the ‘374 patent. Thedescription of litters and medical devices, and the purpose of the patents at issue are culled from the parties’ briefs,relevant portions of the patent, and other documents on file with the Court.
3
Initially, Plaintiff accused Defendant’s MedEX1000, a portable patient monitoring unit, of infringement as well. Bytheir opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, however, Plaintiffs are “no longer alleg[ing] themedEX 1000 infringes the ‘374 patent. (Pl. Opp’n at 4.)
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 10
made at the January 28, 2010
Markman
1
hearing, the Court construes the disputed claim as set forthbelow.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege the following facts:
2
The invention at issue involves a medical apparatus, or “litter,” that is designed to bothtransport a patient from a remote location to a primary-care facility, and to provide supportivemedical care to that patient while in transit. According to the patent itself, the litter differs from anordinary “stretcher” because it includes a number of devices for monitoring and responding to apatient’s condition.” Examples include devices that monitor and respond to a patient’s bloodpressure, temperature, blood oxygen, heart rate, and mass. The litter is also capable of assisting thepatient’s breathing and for stabilizing the heart, if necessary, and includes an electronic centralprocessing unit and visual display to permit emergency personnel to oversee a patient’s condition,and to provide real-time communication with hospital personnel. As far as practicality is concerned,the litter is light enough to be carried by one person, is capable of being operated by one person, andcan be folded to accommodate tight spaces.Defendant manufacturers the Life Support Trauma and Transport System (“LSTAT”).According to Plaintiffs, the LSTAT is a portable transport apparatus, equipped with monitoringfunctions such as invasive and non-invasive blood pressure, electrocardiogram, pulse oximetry,airway carbon dioxide, and temperature. Plaintiffs assert that the LSTAT weighs 175 pounds, canbe carried by two emergency medical services employees, and contains a data processing and othercondition-responsive monitors within the devices body. Plaintiffs contend the LSTAT infringes the‘374 patent.
3
III. LEGAL STANDARD
The court, not the jury, must determine the meaning and scope of patent terms.
Markman
,52 F.3d at 979. When construing disputed claim terms, the court often looks to both intrinsic andextrinsic evidence.
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.
, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).Intrinsic evidence includes the language of the claims, specification, and prosecution history.
Vitronics
, 90 F.3d at 1582. The language of a patent’s claims are “generally given their ordinaryand customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 10
skill in the art in question . . . as of the [patent’s] effective filing date.”
Phillips v. AWH Corp.
, 415F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed toread the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed termappears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.”
Id
.The specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”
Vitronics
, 90F.3d at 1582. The specification can provide further guidance on the meaning of terms in the claimsby, for example, (1) revealing a “special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differsfrom the meaning it would otherwise possess”
Phillips
, 415 F.3d at 1316, (2) revealing an“intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor”
Id.
, or (3) defining a term byimplication, “such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patentdocuments”
Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Abbott Labs.
, 375 F.3d 1328, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2004).The patent’s prosecution history “can often inform the meaning of the claim language bydemonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited theinvention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwisebe.”
Phillips
, 415 F.3d at 1317.Extrinsic evidence “consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history,including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.”
Markman
, 52 F.3d at980. When used, extrinsic evidence cannot “vary or contradict” claim language,
Vitronics
, 90 F.3dat 1584, but it can be useful “for a variety of purposes, such as to provide background . . . [and] toensure that the court’s understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is consistent with that of a person of skill in the art, or to establish that a particular term in the patent or the prior art has aparticular meaning in the pertinent field.”
Phillips
, 415 F.3d at 1318.
IV. DISCUSSION
A.Claim Construction
Claim 1 of the ‘374 patent–an apparatus claim–is the only claim the Court is called uponto construe. The Claim, with the disputed terms bolded, reads as follows:Claim 1: A patient transport apparatus that is adapted to receive a patient froma
remote location
to support the patient to facilitate transporting the patientto a primary care medical facility, the apparatus comprising:a
portable
patient transport
litter
with;a monitor adapted to monitor and generate data responsive to thepatient’s vital signs, the monitor being connected with a data processingunit in the litter;a data processing unit integrally mounted in
the litter and connectedwith the monitor, the data processing unit being responsive to themonitor to receive and process the data; and
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
o United States District Court Central District
The claim construction order was issued in Melvin Valkner, et al. v. Integrated Medical Systems, Inc. in the Central District of California.
262
Reads
1
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
