Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
, 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d., 517 U.S. 370, 372(1996).
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.
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.)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 10
made at the January 28, 2010
hearing, the Court construes the disputed claim as set forthbelow.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege the following facts:
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.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
The court, not the jury, must determine the meaning and scope of patent terms.
,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.
, 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