In this case law judge Sabraw agreed with propsed plaintiff claim construction !
in response to
by
Message: In this case law judge Sabraw agreed with propsed plaintiff claim construction !
That narrowed claims as viewed by district court as a substantive changes.
Because they add new limitation that were not in former claim 1 , these
changes admittedly narrow the scope of the asserted claims and are substatial
and substantive .( This case law has been quoted by Handal to the judge !).
United States District Court,
S.D. California.
I-FLOW CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff.
v.
APEX MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California corporation, et al,
Defendants.
and All Related Counterclaim,
and All Related Counterclaims.
No. 07cv1200 DMS (NLS)
July 25, 2008.
S.D. California.
I-FLOW CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff.
v.
APEX MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California corporation, et al,
Defendants.
and All Related Counterclaim,
and All Related Counterclaims.
No. 07cv1200 DMS (NLS)
July 25, 2008.
ORDER CONSTRUING PATENT CLAIMS
DANA M. SABRAW, District Judge.
This matter came before the Court for a claim construction hearing on July 8, 2008. Boris Zelkind appeared
and argued on behalf of I-Flow Corporation ("Plaintiff" or "I-Flow"), and Norbert Stahl appeared and
argued on behalf of Apex Medical Technologies, Inc. ("Apex") and Mark McGlothlin ("McGlothlin"). After
a thorough review of the parties' claim construction briefs and all other material submitted in connection
with the hearing, as well as a review of the Court's file, the Court issues the following order construing the
disputed terms of the patents at issue in this case.
I.
BACKGROUND
There is one patent at issue in this case: United States Patent Number 5,284,481 ("the '481 Patent").
Generally, the '481 Patent describes an infusion device for medical use. The device consists of (1) a support
member, (2) a fluid reservoir, (3) a housing unit, (4) an inlet port and (5) an outlet port. On June 29, 2007,
Plaintiff filed the present Complaint against Defendant Apex alleging infringement of the '481 Patent.
Plaintiff alleges infringement of claims 1, 2, and 15 of the '481 Patent.
Apex filed an Answer and Counterclaim on September 14, 2007. The original Counterclaim sought a
declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the '481 Patent. On October
26, 2007, Apex filed a First Amended Answer and Counterclaim in which it alleged three additional claims
for unfair competition under federal, state and common law.
On November 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging additional claims for trade secret
misappropriation, breach of confidence, and unfair competition, and naming McGlothlin as a Defendant.
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 14, 2008, in which it realleged all of these claims.
Defendants filed a motion to stay this case on January 31, 2008, and a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on February 5, 2008, both of which the Court denied.
II.
DISCUSSION
Claim construction is an issue of law, Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372, 116 S.Ct.
1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996), and it begins "with the words of the claim." Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424
F.3d 1136, 1142 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
(Fed.Cir.1996)). Generally, those words are "given their ordinary and customary meaning." Id. (citing
Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). This " '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.' " Id . (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313
(Fed.Cir.2005)). "The person of ordinary skill in the art views the claim term in the light of the entire
intrinsic record." Id. Accordingly, the Court must read the claims " 'in view of the specification, of which
they are a part.' " Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed.Cir.1995)). In
addition, " 'the 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. (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d
at 1318).
As stated above, there are three claims at issue in this case, independent claims 1 and 15 and dependent
claim 2. The Court addresses the disputed claim terms below.
DANA M. SABRAW, District Judge.
This matter came before the Court for a claim construction hearing on July 8, 2008. Boris Zelkind appeared
and argued on behalf of I-Flow Corporation ("Plaintiff" or "I-Flow"), and Norbert Stahl appeared and
argued on behalf of Apex Medical Technologies, Inc. ("Apex") and Mark McGlothlin ("McGlothlin"). After
a thorough review of the parties' claim construction briefs and all other material submitted in connection
with the hearing, as well as a review of the Court's file, the Court issues the following order construing the
disputed terms of the patents at issue in this case.
I.
BACKGROUND
There is one patent at issue in this case: United States Patent Number 5,284,481 ("the '481 Patent").
Generally, the '481 Patent describes an infusion device for medical use. The device consists of (1) a support
member, (2) a fluid reservoir, (3) a housing unit, (4) an inlet port and (5) an outlet port. On June 29, 2007,
Plaintiff filed the present Complaint against Defendant Apex alleging infringement of the '481 Patent.
Plaintiff alleges infringement of claims 1, 2, and 15 of the '481 Patent.
Apex filed an Answer and Counterclaim on September 14, 2007. The original Counterclaim sought a
declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the '481 Patent. On October
26, 2007, Apex filed a First Amended Answer and Counterclaim in which it alleged three additional claims
for unfair competition under federal, state and common law.
On November 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging additional claims for trade secret
misappropriation, breach of confidence, and unfair competition, and naming McGlothlin as a Defendant.
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 14, 2008, in which it realleged all of these claims.
Defendants filed a motion to stay this case on January 31, 2008, and a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on February 5, 2008, both of which the Court denied.
II.
DISCUSSION
Claim construction is an issue of law, Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372, 116 S.Ct.
1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996), and it begins "with the words of the claim." Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424
F.3d 1136, 1142 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
(Fed.Cir.1996)). Generally, those words are "given their ordinary and customary meaning." Id. (citing
Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). This " '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.' " Id . (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313
(Fed.Cir.2005)). "The person of ordinary skill in the art views the claim term in the light of the entire
intrinsic record." Id. Accordingly, the Court must read the claims " 'in view of the specification, of which
they are a part.' " Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed.Cir.1995)). In
addition, " 'the 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. (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d
at 1318).
As stated above, there are three claims at issue in this case, independent claims 1 and 15 and dependent
claim 2. The Court addresses the disputed claim terms below.
14 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
11
Aug 03, 2013 04:43PM
3
Aug 03, 2013 06:35PM
5
Aug 03, 2013 08:16PM
7
Aug 05, 2013 12:15PM
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply