Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantmotionsummary judgmentpatentcorporationcivil proceduremotion for summary judgment
plaintiffdefendantmotionsummary judgmentpatentmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 1337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,590, 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1633
View Case »
Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co., 157 U.S. 659, 15 S.Ct. 738, 39 L.Ed. 848
View Case »
Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 320 U.S. 680, 64 S.Ct. 278, 88 L.Ed. 396, 60 U.S.P.Q. 30
View Case »
NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., 768 F.3d 682, 79 ERC 1241
View Case »
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 11 How. 248, 1850 WL 6799, 13 L.Ed. 683
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Scimed Life Systems, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 682675

Facts

Plaintiffs Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. and Guidant Sales Corporation allege that defendants Scimed Life Systems, Inc. and Boston Scientific Corporation's NIR stent infringes upon five related patents for coronary stents. The patents in question include U.S. Patent No. 5,421,955, for which plaintiffs moved for summary judgment of infringement on Claims 11 and 12. The court's analysis focused on whether the NIR stent met the specific claim limitations outlined in the patent, particularly regarding the definition of 'cylindrical elements.'

The parties do not dispute that the first three elements in Claims 11 and 12 of the '955 patent are present in the NIR stent.

Issue

Did the defendants' NIR stent literally infringe Claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 5,421,955?

Did the defendants' NIR stent literally infringe Claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 5,421,955?

Rule

To establish a claim of literal infringement, a plaintiff must prove that every limitation in a claim exists in the accused product. The court must grant summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

To establish a claim of literal infringement of a patent, a plaintiff must prove that every limitation in a claim exists in the accused product. Becton Dickinson and Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 796 (Fed.Cir.1990).

Analysis

The court found that while the first three elements of the claims were undisputedly present in the NIR stent, the fourth element concerning 'cylindrical elements' was a matter of disputed fact. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' own descriptions of the NIR stent as having 'serpentine sections' should equitably estop them from denying the presence of 'cylindrical elements.' However, the court noted that the defendants also referred to the stent as having 'cells,' indicating a significant distinction. The existence of 'cylindrical elements' was thus not established beyond reasonable dispute, leading to the denial of summary judgment.

The evidence in this case also does not show beyond reasonable dispute that the NIR stent contains such 'cylindrical elements.' Defendants argue that the NIR stent is distinguishable from the stent described in the Lau patents because the NIR stent incorporates 'cells' or 'diamond shaped patterns' in its design.

Conclusion

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment of infringement on Claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 5,421,955 due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the definition and presence of 'cylindrical elements' in the NIR stent.

Therefore, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment of infringement on these elements is DENIED.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in this case as the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The court determined that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the NIR stent contained the 'cylindrical elements' as defined in the patent claims, which is essential for establishing literal infringement. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the NIR stent met all the limitations of the claims in question.

The court finds that questions of fact remain to be settled in this case concerning whether defendants have literally infringed elements 4, 5, and 6 of Claims 11 and 12 of the '955 patent.

You must be