C R Bard, Inc. v. Angiodynamics Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 June 2018
• Docket Number: 1:15CV218
• Parties: C R BARD, INC., BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., Plaintiffs, v. ANGIODYNAMICS INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

C R BARD, INC., BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., Plaintiffs, v. ANGIODYNAMICS INC., Defendant.

1:15CV218

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

June 26, 2018

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the following motions for summary judgment and motions to preclude testimony:

1. Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,805,478 for Failure to Satisfy Indirect Infringement filed by AngioDynamics Inc., Filing No. 248;

2. Motion for Summary Judgment on Limitations of Damages for Failure to Mark and No Entitlement to Provisional Rights Damages filed by AngioDynamics Inc., Filing No. 249;

3. Motion for Summary Judgment Adjudication of Infringement of '417 Patent and Its Published Patent Application (The '951 Publication) filed by Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., Filing No. 250;

4. Motion for Summary Judgment Adjudication that the Asserted Claims are Enabled and Described Under Section 112 and No Anticipation Under Section 102 by the Iso-Med Prior Art Reference filed by Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., Filing No. 253; 5. Motion for Summary Judgment Adjudication that the Asserted Claims of the Patents-In-Suit Recite Patent Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 filed by Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., Filing No. 254;

6. Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Ineligibility filed by AngioDynamics Inc., Filing No. 255;

7. Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity filed by AngioDynamics Inc., Filing No. 256;

8. Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Vogelzang and Mr. Bakewell filed by Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., Filing No. 271;

9. Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Matthew Johnson, M.D. and Timothy Clark, M.D. filed by AngioDynamics Inc., Filing No. 274; and

10. Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Alan Cox, Ph.D. filed by AngioDynamics Inc., Filing No. 276.

I. BACKGROUND

Bard filed this lawsuit on March 10, 2015, alleging that AngioDynamics is liable for infringement of three patents: (1) U.S. Patent 8,475,417 (the "'417 Patent"); (2) U.S. Patent 8,545,460 (the "'460 Patent"); and (3) U.S. Patent 8,805,478 (the "'478 Patent"). The '417 Patent issued on July 2, 2013. The application that led to the '417 Patent was published on September 10, 2009 as US 2009/0227951 A1 ("'951 Publication"). The '951 Publication's claims are substantially identical to the '417 Patent's claims. The '460 Patent issued on October 1, 2013. The '478 Patent issued on August 12, 2014, and contains only method claims. See Amended Complaint, Filing No. 192.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Summary Judgment

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.10 (1986). A party asserting that a fact cannot be-or, alternatively, is-genuinely disputed must support the assertion either by citing to "particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for the purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials," or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) & (B). If the moving party has carried its burden, the nonmovant must then "come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court will "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).

To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87. Although the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment," a factual dispute is genuine where "the evidence is such that areasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Id. at 249-50 (internal citations omitted); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (stating entry of summary judgment is mandated "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial").

B. Infringement

A patent is infringed when a person "without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States ... during the term of the patent." 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). A two-step analysis is employed in making an infringement determination. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995). First, the court must construe the asserted claims to ascertain their meaning and scope. See id. Construction of the claims is a question of law subject to de novo review. See Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The trier of fact must then compare the properly construed claims with the accused infringing product. See Markman, 52 F.3d at 976. This second step is a question of fact. See Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

"Direct infringement requires a party to perform each and every step or element of a claimed method or product." BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "If any claim limitation is absent from the accused device, there is no literal infringement as a matter of law." Bayer AG v. ElanPharm. Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2000). If an accused product does not infringe an independent claim, it also does not infringe any claim depending thereon. See Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1553 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1989). However, "[o]ne may infringe an independent claim and not infringe a claim dependent on that claim." Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 503 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Wahpeton Canvas, 870 F.2d at 1552) (internal quotations omitted). A product that does not literally infringe a patent claim may still infringe under the doctrine of equivalents if the differences between an individual limitation of the claimed invention and an element of the accused product are insubstantial. See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 24 (1997). The patent owner has the burden of proving infringement and must meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence. See SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Lab. Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).

When an accused infringer moves for summary judgment of non-infringement, such relief may be granted only if one or more limitations of the claim in question does not read on an element of the accused product, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. See Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Summary judgment of noninfringement is ... appropriate where the patent owner's proof is deficient in meeting an essential part of the legal standard for infringement, because such failure will render all other facts immaterial."). Thus, summary judgment of non-infringement can only be granted if, after viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant, there is no genuine issue as to whether the accused product iscovered by the claims (as construed by the court). See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

"[A] method claim is not directly infringed by the sale of an apparatus even though it is capable of performing only the patented method. The sale of the apparatus is not a sale of the method. A method claim is directly infringed only by one practicing the patented method." Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, "the accused infringer must perform all the steps of the claimed method, either personally or through another acting under his direction or control." Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

With respect to apparatus claims, "to infringe a claim that recites capability and not actual operation, an accused device 'need only be capable of operating' in the described mode. " Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 946 F.2d 821, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, if an apparatus claim requires "software [to] be configured in a particular way to infringe," infringement does not occur merely because the apparatus could be used in an infringing fashion. Finjan, 626 F.3d at 1204-05.

C. Anticipation

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), "[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless-

(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as

...