Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 05-1043.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-1043.,05-1043. |
| Citation | 424 F.3d 1293 |
| Parties | CROSS MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK, INC. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Bruce D. Kuyper, Latham & Watkins, LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Brian F. McMahon; Mark A. Finkelstein, Allan Z. Litovsky, and Jordan B. Kushner of Costa Mesa, California.
Dirk D. Thomas, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants. With him on the brief were Robert A. Auchter; Jan M. Conlin and Munir R. Meghjee, of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al. ("Medtronic") appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California ("district court") permanently enjoining Medtronic from infringing claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,474,555 ("the '555 patent") owned by Cross Medical Products, Inc. ("Cross Medical"). See Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., No. SA CV 03-110-GLT(ANx) (C.D.Cal. Sept. 28, 2004). The permanent injunction was issued following the grant of Cross Medical's motions for partial summary judgment of validity and infringement. See Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., No. SA CV 03-110-GLT(ANx) (C.D.Cal. Aug. 19, 2004) ("Invalidity Opinion"); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., No. SA CV 03-110-GLT(ANx) ("Infringement Opinion"). As a threshold matter, we conclude, over Cross Medical's objection, that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. On Medtronic's challenge to the district court's claim construction rulings, we affirm the district court's construction of the "anchoring means," "securing means," and "bear against said channel" limitations, but modify the district court's construction of the "anchor seat means" and "operatively joined" limitations. Because we find genuine issues of material fact regarding infringement, we reverse the grant of Cross Medical's motion for partial summary judgment of infringement and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Medtronic's cross-motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement. We also reverse the grant of Cross Medical's motion for partial summary judgment that claim 5 is not obvious but affirm the grant of that motion as to indefiniteness and anticipation. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Medtronic's cross-motion for summary judgment as to these invalidity issues. Consequently, we vacate the permanent injunction. Thus, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
This appeal involves orthopedic surgical implants used to stabilize and align the bones of a patient's spine. A common problem with spinal fixation is determining how to secure the fixation device to the spine without damaging the spinal cord. Methods of fixation have developed which utilize wires that extend through the spinal canal and hold a rod against the lamina,1 or that utilize pedicular screws which extend into the pedicle2 and secure a plate which extends across vertebral segments. The system taught in U.S. Patent No. 4,805,602 ("the '602 patent"), which is also assigned to Cross Medical and is part of the case against Medtronic but not involved in this appeal, exemplifies the advantages of both methods. The screw and rod system of the '602 patent provides a rigidity which is intermediate between wired implant and plate systems. Several screw and rod systems are known in the art. Those which feature an anchor secured to the bone by a separate screw are termed "polyaxial." Polyaxial screws have a capability of pivoting in the anchor. Devices in which the anchor and the bone screw form a unitary body are deemed "monoaxial." Monoaxial screws have no ability to pivot relative to the anchor.
Cross Medical's '555 patent discloses a device, an embodiment of which is illustrated in Figures 1, 2, and 3 below:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The '555 device allows a surgeon to place a series of bone screws 21, each carrying an anchor seat 23, into the bones of a patient. A stabilization rod 18 thereafter may be positioned in the channels 51, 52 of the anchor seats. The '555 device allows surgeons to secure the rod to the anchor seats with top-tightening nuts 27. By connecting the rod in this fashion to the anchors on adjacent spinal bones, the position of the patient's spine may be fixed as desired by the surgeon.
On February 4, 2003, Cross Medical filed suit alleging that certain of Medtronic's polyaxial screws-MAS, Vertex, M8, Sextant, M10, Legacy 4.5, and Legacy 5.5 — infringe the '555 patent and U.S. Patent No. 5,466,237 ("the '237 patent"). The accused devices employ a "set screw," which features external threads to mate with the receiver member's internal threads, to hold the rod in the receiver member. The accused devices also include a "crown member" that lies between the rod and the bone screw. An illustration of the accused device follows, with explanatory text added.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Medtronic denied infringement and counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. Subsequent to the initial pleading, responses and amended pleadings added claims and counterclaims relating to several additional patents, including the '602 patent. The district court resolved several issues through summary adjudication. Of importance to this appeal, the district court separately entertained motions for partial summary judgment of infringement and validity of claim 5 of the '555 patent.
Claim 5 recites:
A fixation device for the posterior stabilization of one or more bone segments of the spine, comprising:
at least two anchors and an elongated stabilizer comprising a rod having a diameter and a longitudinal axis, said anchors each comprising anchoring means which secure said anchors to said bone segment and an anchor seat means which has a lower bone interface operatively joined to said bone segment and an anchor seat portion spaced apart from said bone interface including a channel to receive said rod; and
securing means which cooperate with each of said anchor seat portions spaced apart from said bone interface and exterior to the bone relative to said elongated rod, said seat means including a vertical axis and first threads which extend in the direction of said vertical axis toward said lower bone interface to a depth below the diameter of the rod when it is in the rod receiving channel, and said securing means including second threads which cooperate with the first threads of the seat means to cause said rod to bear against said channel through the application of substantially equal compressive forces by said securing means in the direction of the vertical axis and applied on either side along said longitudinal axis of said channel.
'555 patent, col. 8, ll. 33-57 (emphases added).
On May 29, 2004, the district court construed the "operatively joined," "securing means," and "bear against said channel" limitations of claim 5 of the '555 patent. Based on these constructions, the court granted Cross Medical's motion for partial summary judgment of infringement, and denied Medtronic's cross-motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement. On August 19, 2004, the district court additionally construed the "anchor seat means" and "anchoring means" limitations of claim 5 of the '555 patent. The court then denied Medtronic's motion for partial summary judgment that claim 5 was anticipated, obvious, and indefinite, and granted Cross Medical's cross-motion for partial summary judgment that claim 5 was neither anticipated, obvious, nor indefinite.
On September 28, 2004, with proceedings still on-going with respect to the '555 patent and other patents-in-suit, the district court granted Cross Medical's motion for a permanent injunction to preclude Medtronic's infringement of claim 5 of the '555 patent. The district court presumed irreparable harm because Cross Medical had prevailed on the merits at the summary judgment stage. Medtronic argued that there could be no harm because it withdrew all of the asserted infringing devices from the market; however, the district court found that some of the infringing products remained available and that Medtronic had the capacity to bring infringing product back to market. On October 4, 2004, the district court stayed the injunction for 90 days to allow Medtronic time to appeal.
On October 13, 2004, Medtronic appealed from the order granting the injunction, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), (c)(1). Medtronic asks this court to review the district court's claim construction rulings, reverse or vacate the district court's partial summary judgment orders on infringement, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness with respect to claim 5 of the '555 patent, and vacate the permanent injunction. On November 19, 2004, Cross Medical filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
"Whether this court has jurisdiction over an appeal taken from a district court judgment is a question of law which we address in the first instance." Pause Tech. LLC v. TiVo Inc., 401 F.3d 1290, 1292 (Fed.Cir.2005). Section 1292(a)(1) provides that the court of appeals has jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2000). Section 1292(c)(1) provides this court exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal of an interlocutory order granting an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...U.S.C. § 271; Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 2005); DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1330-34 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athlet......
-
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
...bears the burden of proving any such infringement by a preponderance of the evidence.See e.g., Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310 (Fed.Cir.2005); Carroll Touch Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1993). To satisfy ......
-
E2interactive, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.
...1364,1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005); PSC Computer Prods., Inc. v. Foxconn Int'l, 355 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic, 424 F.3d 1293, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Second element: 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).Page 21611.2.11.1 INFRINGEMENT — DEFINITION As I stated in the previous inst......
-
ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:16–CV–125–HEH
...417, 443–47, 104 S.Ct. 774, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984) ; In re Bill of Lading , 681 F.3d at 1337 ; Cross Med. Prods, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. , 424 F.3d 1293, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As such, it is clear that a finding of a single noninfringing use delivers a fatal blow to a claim of......
-
'eBay' Ended Presumption Of Irreparable Harm In Determining The Appropriateness Of Injunctive Relief, But The Fundamental Nature Of Patents As Property Rights May Not Be Ignored
...the district court order explicitly denied the grant of a permanent injunction. See Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. In analyzing eBay's effect on injunctive relief for patent infringement, the Court opined that while the Supreme Court made ......
-
Chapter §17.02 Inducing Infringement Under §271(b)
...acts necessary to infringe the patent, either personally or vicariously. See Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1311 (Fed.Cir.2005); Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc., 720 F.2d 1565, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1983). In the context of a method claim, that means ......
-
Patent law and the two cultures.
...an amendment made to overcome a [section] 112 rejection to be tangential), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 287 F. Supp. 2d 126 (D. Mass. 2003) (finding an amendment made to overcome a [s......
-
Appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
...also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1320–21 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Fuji Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d 1368, 1375 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Graphic Controls Corp. v. ......
-
Chapter §16.05 Legal Limitations on the Doctrine of Equivalents
...added by Federal Circuit to indicate language added by amendment).[243] Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005).[244] Cross Med., 480 F.3d at 1340–1341 (quoting district court's opinion).[245] Cross Med., 480 F.3d at 1342.[246] See Cross Med.......