Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Monaghan Medical Corp. v. Smiths Medical ASD, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

July 6, 2018

MONAGHAN MEDICAL CORP., Plaintiff,
v.
SMITHS MEDICAL ASD, INC., Defendant. SMITHS MEDICAL ASD, INC., Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
MONAGHAN MEDICAL CORP., Counterclaim Defendant.

          Dominick T. Gattuso, HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP William H. Frankel, David P. Lindner, Jafon L. Fearson, BRINKS GILSON & LIONE, Chicago, IL Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant.

          Jody Barillare, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Wilmington, DE J. Kevin Fee, Jeremy D. Peterson, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, DC Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Monaghan Medical Corp. (“Monaghan”) has sought a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent No. 7, 059, 324 (“'324 patent”). Defendant Smiths Medical ASD, Inc. (“Smiths Medical”) has counterclaimed that Monaghan infringes the '324 patent as well as U.S. Patent No. 6, 581, 598 (“'598 patent”) (collectively, “patents-in-suit”).

         Presently before the Court are the parties' disputes over the meaning of certain claim terms in the asserted claims. The parties submitted technology tutorials (D.I. 64, 65), objections to technology tutorials (D.I. 68, 73), claim construction briefs (D.I. 54, 61, 69, 71), and expert declarations (D.I. 62, 71). The Court held a claim construction hearing on May 7, 2018. (See D.I. 97 (“Tr.”))

         I. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

         The ultimate question of the proper construction of a patent is a question of law. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 837 (2015) (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388-91 (1996)). “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. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         “[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.” Id. at 1324. Instead, the Court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources “in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.” Id.

         “[T]he 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.” Id. at 1312-13 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Id. at 1321 (internal quotation marks omitted). The patent 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.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

         While “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms, ” the context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Furthermore, “[o]ther claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of enlightenment . . . [b]ecause claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

         It is likewise true that “[d]ifferences among claims can also be a useful guide. . . . For example, the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Id. at 1314-15 (internal citation omitted). This “presumption is especially strong when the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and dependent claim, and one party is urging that the limitation in the dependent claim should be read into the independent claim.” SunRace Roots Enter. Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

         It is also possible that “the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor's lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. It bears emphasis that “[e]ven when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         In addition to the specification, a court “should also consider the patent's prosecution history, if it is in evidence.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The prosecution history, which is “intrinsic evidence, ” “consists of the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO [Patent and Trademark Office] and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. “[T]he prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id.

         In some cases, “the district court will need to look beyond the patent's intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” Teva, 135 S.Ct. at 841. 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 at 980. For instance, technical dictionaries can assist the court in determining the meaning of a term to those of skill in the relevant art because such dictionaries “endeavor to collect the accepted meanings of terms used in various fields of science and technology.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. In addition, expert testimony can be useful “to ensure 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 a particular meaning in the pertinent field.” Id. Nonetheless, courts must not lose sight of the fact that “expert reports and testimony [are] generated at the time of and for the purpose of litigation and thus can suffer from bias that is not present in intrinsic evidence.” Id. Overall, while extrinsic evidence “may be useful” to the court, it is “less reliable” than intrinsic evidence, and its consideration “is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1318-19. Where the intrinsic record unambiguously describes the scope of the patented invention, reliance on any extrinsic evidence is improper. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583).

         Finally, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that “a claim interpretation that would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation.” Osram GmbH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

         B. INDEFINITENESS

         A patent claim is indefinite if, “viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [it fails to] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). A claim may be indefinite if the patent does not convey with reasonable certainty how to measure a claimed feature. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2015). But “[i]f such an understanding of how to measure the claimed [feature] was within the scope of knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art, there is no requirement for the specification to identify a particular measurement technique.” Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

         II. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS

         The patents-in-suit[1] generally relate to positive expiratory pressure (“PEP”) devices and methods using oscillatory positive expiratory pressure to treat patients. '324 patent, 1:12-18; '598 patent, 1:6-12. The methods and devices are designed to help remove excess mucus from patients suffering from certain lung problems. '324 patent, 1:21-26, 36-52; '598 patent, 1:15-20, 39-51. “In the use of PEP therapy, a patient breathes through an orifice restricter to generate a positive pressure in the lungs during exhalation, with the pressure falling to zero at the end of the exhalation.” '598 patent, 1:39-42. “By selection of the proper-sized orifice, a given pressure is determined for the exhalation flow rate generated by an individual patient.” Id. 1:42-44. “This extended, substantially constant, flow of elevated-pressure exhalation has been shown to be effective for moving secretions trapped in the lungs to the larger airways where the secretions can then be removed through coughing.” Id. 1:44-48. “It has also been found that . . . treatment with PEP therapy is improved by combining positive expiratory pressure therapy with airway oscillation and intermittent air-flow acceleration.” Id. 1:66-2:5.

         1.discharge expiratory, ” “expiratory air, ” and “expiratory air pressure”

         a. “discharge expiratory”[2]

Monaghan

Indefinite

Smiths Medical

“exhaled air”

Court

“exhaled air”

         b. “the discharge of expiratory air”[3]

Monaghan

“the exhaled air from the lungs into the patient input opening”

Smiths Medical

“exhaled air”

Court

“exhaled air”

         c. “the pressure of expiratory air”[4]

Monaghan

“the pressure of exhaled air from the lungs”

Smiths Medical

“the pressure of exhaled air”

Court

“the pressure of exhaled air”

         d. “the expiratory air pressure”[5]

Monaghan

“the exhaled air pressure from the lungs” (claim 2); “the exhaled air pressure from the lungs into the air flow tube” (claim 6)

Smiths Medical

“exhaled air pressure”

Court

“exhaled air pressure”

         e. “the pressure of expiratory air discharged therethrough”[6]

Monaghan

Indefinite

Smiths Medical

“the pressure of the exhaled air passed through”

Court

“the pressure of the exhaled air passed through”

          f. “the pressure of expiratory air ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.