Mbo Laboratories v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., No. CIV.A.03-10038 RCL.
Citation | 385 F.Supp.2d 88 |
Decision Date | 06 September 2005 |
Docket Number | No. CIV.A.03-10038 RCL. |
Parties | MBO LABORATORIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts |
Kevin M. Bell, Patton Boggs LLP, McLean, VA, for Becton, Dickinson & Company, Defendant.
James S. Bolan, Brecher, Wyner, Simons & Bolan, LLP, Newton, for Fish & Richardson, Interested Party.
Scott A.M. Chambers, Patton Boggs LLP, McLean, VA, for Becton, Dickinson & Company, Defendant.
Maria R. Durant, Dwyer & Collora, LLP, Federal Reserve Bank, Boston, for Becton, Dickinson & Company, Defendant.
William H. Kettlewell, Dwyer & Collora, LLP, Boston, for Becton, Dickinson & Company, Defendant.
Marc R. Labgold, Patton Boggs LLP, McLean, VA, for Becton, Dickinson & Company, Defendant.
James K. Lewis, Patton Boggs LLP, Denver, CO, for Becton, Dickinson & Company, Defendant.
Kevin M. Littman, Fish & Richardson, PC, Boston, for MBO Laboratories Inc, Plaintiff.
Laura D. Nammo, Patton Boggs LLP, McLean, VA, for Becton, Dickinson & Company, Defendant.
David A. Simons, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Washington, DC, for MBO Laboratories Inc, Plaintiff.
John M. Skenyon, Fish & Richardson, PC, Boston, for MBO Laboratories Inc, Plaintiff.
Samuel Waxman, Patton Boggs LLP, McLean, VA, for Becton, Dickinson & Company, Defendant.
Michael E. Zeliger, Fish & Richardson, PC, Boston, for MBO Laboratories Inc, Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM ON CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS
This is a patent infringement action in which the plaintiff, a closely held Massachusetts corporation called MBO Laboratories, Inc. ("MBO"), alleges that the defendant, Becton, Dickinson and Company ("Becton"), a company that manufactures and sells medical devices, infringed MBO's United States Patent No. RE. 36,885 ("the '885 patent"). The '885 patent relates to a safety needle and blood collection and sampling system that is designed to reduce the risk of injury caused to healthcare workers by needlesticks from contaminated needles. MBO claims that Becton's SafetyGlide ™ shielding hypodermic needle infringes claims 13, 19, 20, 27, 28, 32, and 33 of the '885 patent. Both parties briefed their respective views as to the construction of the claims at issue and presented argument at a Markman hearing on July 20, 2005.
There are two steps to a patent infringement analysis. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc). First, the meaning and scope of the patent claims alleged to have been infringed must be determined. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 384, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). This step is commonly referred to as "claim construction." Second, the accused device must be compared to the properly construed claims to determine whether the device infringes the patent. Cybor Corp., 138 F.3d at 1454. While the second step presents a question of fact for the fact-finder, the first step is a question of law for the court. Markman, 517 U.S. at 372, 116 S.Ct. 1384 ( ). It is this first step, claim construction, that is the subject of this memorandum.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that the purpose of patent claims is to apprise the public of what is protected by a particular patent. Markman, 517 U.S. at 373, 116 S.Ct. 1384 ( ); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 2005 WL 1620331, at *4 (Fed.Cir. July 12, 2005) ( ); see also Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed.Cir.1989) ( ). While the construction of the claims of a patent is closely akin to construing other written documents, like contracts or statutes, special considerations apply to patent claim construction, based upon the need for the public, and other inventors, to understand as clearly as possible the scope of a patentee's claimed invention. Therefore, in construing the claims of a patent, a court must first look to matters in the public record. Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed.Cir.1999) ( )(citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996)).
The primary sources for guidance in claim construction are the intrinsic sources: the language of the claim; the written description portion of the specification, including any relevant drawings; and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303, 2005 WL 1620331, at *6; Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. v. Hoffinger Indus., Inc., 206 F.3d 1408, 1414 (Fed.Cir.2000); see Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324-25 (Fed.Cir.2002) ( ); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582-83 (Fed.Cir.1996) ( ); see also Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299 (Fed.Cir.1999) ( ).
(1) The words of the claim
In construing the claims of a patent, the court's initial resort is to the words of the claim itself. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1324 ( ); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed.Cir.1995) ( ). The court "must presume that the terms in the claim mean what they say, and, unless otherwise compelled, give full effect to the ordinary and accustomed meaning of claim terms." Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989 (Fed.Cir.1999). The "ordinary and customary" meaning of a claim term 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." Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303, 1312; Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325 ( ).
It is important to note that "the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification." Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303, 1313; see Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices, Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed.Cir.2005) ( ); Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 375 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2004) ( ). Thus, the construing court should look at "the context in which a [claim] term is used in the asserted claim." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 ( ). "Other claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term." Id. (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). Because patentees normally use claim terms "consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (citing Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed.Cir.2001)). Likewise, differences among claims can guide the court in "understanding the meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
Furthermore, plain English words are entitled to their plain English meaning, In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed.Cir.1989), unless it is apparent from the patent specification and the prosecution history that the inventor used a term with a different meaning, Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1996). In short, while terms used in a patent generally...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCloskey v. Mueller
... ... McCLOSKEY and Kevin P. McCloskey, As Co-Administrators of the Estate of Philip McCloskey, ... ...
-
MBO LABORATORIES, INC. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
...Safety-GlideTM hypodermic safety syringes infringed RE '885 claims 13, 19, 20, 27, 28, 32, and 33. See MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 385 F.Supp.2d 88, 91 (D.Mass.2005). After holding a Markman hearing, the district court construed several claim terms, id. at 106-11, including ......
-
Mbo Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
...After conducting a Markman hearing, the district court construed the various disputed claim terms. MBO Labs. v. Becton, Dickinson, & Co., 385 F.Supp.2d 88 (D.Mass.2005). MBO conceded that under the district court's claim construction there was no infringement of the patent claims. The distr......
-
Mbo Laboratories Inc. v. Becton
...“slidably receive” the needle, and the requirement that the blocking flange be “mounted” on the guard. See MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 385 F.Supp.2d 88 (D.Mass.2005). On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed all of the district court's claim interpretations except for the con......