Schneider (Europe) AG v. SciMed Life Systems, Inc.

Decision Date25 April 1994
Docket NumberNo. 3-91 CIV 241.,3-91 CIV 241.
Citation852 F. Supp. 813
PartiesSCHNEIDER (EUROPE) AG and Schneider (USA) Inc., Plaintiffs, v. SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Shea & Gould by John E. Kidd, John B. Grant, Jr., Leora Ben-Ami, Annette M. McGarry, and Arthur M. Peslak and Pennie & Edmonds by Gidon D. Stern of New York City, and Maslon, Edelman, Borman, & Brand by Gary J. Haugen, Minneapolis, MN, appeared on behalf of plaintiffs.

Fish & Neave by Robert C. Morgan, Thomas L. Giannetti, Mark H. Bloomberg, Kristin H. Neuman, and Brenda J. Panichi of New York City and Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, & Kaufman, Ltd. by Wayne G. Popham, Minneapolis, MN, appeared on behalf of defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

ALSOP, Senior District Judge.

                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
                Findings of Fact                                                                        Page
                   I.    Background Facts                                                                 823
                         A. Nature of the Action and the Parties                                          823
                         B. Background of the Invention                                                   824
                         C. The '129 Patent                                                               826
                         D. Reexamination of the '129 Patent                                              827
                  II.    Infringement                                                                     828
                         A.   Claim Construction of the '129 Patent                                       828
                              (i)   The "Integral" Limitation                                             828
                              (ii)  The "Relatively Short"/"Substantially Distal" Limitations             830
                              (iii) The "First Tube" and "Sufficient Stiffness" Limitations               830
                              (iv)  The "Stabilizing Wire" Limitation                                     831
                              (v)   Scope of Coverage of the '129 Patent Claims                           831
                         B.   The Structure of the EXPRESS and the RALLY                                  831
                              (i)   The EXPRESS                                                           831
                              (ii)  The RALLY                                                             831
                         C.   Literal Infringement                                                        832
                              (i)   The EXPRESS                                                           832
                              (ii)  The RALLY                                                             833
                         D.   The Doctrine of Equivalents                                                 833
                              (i)   The "Integral" Limitation                                             833
                              (ii)  The "Relatively Short"/"Substantially Distal" Limitations             833
                              (iii) The "First Tube" Limitation                                           834
                              (iv)  The "Sufficient Stiffness" Limitation                                 834
                              (v)   The "Integral Stabilizing Means" Limitation                           834
                 III.    Validity                                                                         834
                         A.   One of Ordinary Skill in the Art                                            834
                         B.   Scope and Content of Prior Art/Differences Between the Prior Art and the
                              Claims at issue                                                             834
                              (i)   Scope of the Relevant Prior Art                                       834
                              (ii)  Content of the Alleged Prior Art/Differences Between the Prior Art
                                    and the Claims at Issue                                               835
                                    (a) Borisenko                                                         835
                                    (b) Nordenstrom                                                       835
                                    (c) Morton                                                            836
                                    (d) Esophagal Devices                                                 837
                                    (e) Hartzler                                                          837
                                    (f) Perfusion Catheters                                               837
                                    (g) Kaltenbach                                                        837
                                    (h) Leary                                                             838
                         C.   The Claimed Catheter would not have been Obvious to One of Ordinary
                              Skill in the Art                                                            838
                         D.   Secondary Considerations                                                    838
                              (i)   Background — Development of Schneider's Catheters                     838
                              (ii)  Commercial Success of Schneider's Catheters                           839
                
                              (iii) Commercial Success of Infringing Catheters                            839
                              (iv)  Other Secondary Considerations                                        839
                         E.   Inequitable Conduct                                                         840
                   IV.   Willfulness                                                                      841
                    V.   Damages                                                                          844
                         A.   Background                                                                  844
                         B.   Lost Profits                                                                845
                              (i)   Demand for the Patented Product                                       845
                              (ii)  Absence of Non-Infringing Alternatives                                845
                              (iii) Ability to Meet Demand                                                846
                              (iv)  The Amount of Loss                                                    846
                         C.   Reasonable Royalty                                                          847
                              (i)   Georgia-Pacific Factors                                               847
                         D.   Prejudgment Interest                                                        850
                   VI.   Attorney Fees and Costs                                                          850
                  VII.   Permanent Injunction                                                             850
                Conclusions of Law
                    I.   Infringement                                                                     851
                         A.   Claim Construction                                                          851
                         B.   Infringement by the SciMed EXPRESS™ and RALLY™ catheters                   852
                              (i)   Literal Infringement                                                  852
                              (ii)  Doctrine of Equivalents                                               852
                   II.   Validity                                                                         852
                         A.   Obviousness                                                                 853
                         B.   Secondary Considerations                                                    854
                         C.   Inequitable Conduct                                                         855
                  III.   Willfulness                                                                      856
                   IV.   Damages                                                                          857
                         A.   Background                                                                  857
                         B.   Lost Profits                                                                858
                              (i)   Demand for the Patented Product                                       858
                              (ii)  Absence of Non-Infringing Alternatives                                858
                              (iii) Ability to Meet Demand                                                859
                              (iv)  The Amount of Loss                                                    859
                         C.   Reasonable Royalty                                                          859
                         D.   Prejudgment Interest                                                        860
                    V.   Attorney Fees and Costs                                                          860
                   VI.   Permanent Injunction                                                             861
                Damage Tables                                                                             864
                Order                                                                                     869
                Form of Permanent Injunction                                                              869
                

Based on the evidence presented at trial, the oral and written arguments of counsel, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. Background Facts
A. Nature of the Action and the Parties

1. This is a patent infringement action with federal jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (1988 & Supp.1993). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (1988 & Supp.1993).

2. Plaintiff Schneider (USA) Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and having its principal place of business in Plymouth, Minnesota. Plaintiff Schneider (Europe) AG is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland and having its principal place of business in Bulach, Switzerland.1

3. Defendant SciMed Life Systems, Inc. ("SciMed") is a corporation organized and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Boston Scientific Corp. v. Schneider (Europe) Ag
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • October 23, 1997
    ...determined before Judge Alsop in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in Schneider (Europe) AG v. SciMed Life Systems, Inc., 852 F.Supp. 813 (D.Minn.1994), aff'd, 60 F.3d 839 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 520, 133 L.Ed.2d 427 (1995) ("the SciMed......
  • Century Wrecker Corp. v. ER Buske Mfg. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
    • January 9, 1996
    ...751, 832 (E.D.N.Y.1995); Virginia Panel Corp. v. MacPanel Co., 887 F.Supp. 880, 886 (W.D.Va.1995); Schneider (Europe) AG v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 852 F.Supp. 813, 860 (D.Minn.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 520, 133 L.Ed.2d 427 (1995); In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. ......
  • Curtis Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Plasti-Clip Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • September 14, 1995
    ...In general, "`protecting patents from would-be infringers is always acting in the public interest.'" Schneider (Europe) AG v. Scimed Life Systems, Inc., 852 F.Supp. 813, 861 (D.Minn.1994) (quoting Pittway v. Black & Decker, 667 F.Supp. 585, 593 (N.D.Ill. 1987)), appeal dismissed without opi......
  • Micro Chemcial, Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • September 14, 2001
    ...Fonar Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 902 F.Supp. 330, 354 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (rates for U.S. Treasury bills); Schneider (Europe) AG v. SciMed Life Systems, Inc., 852 F.Supp. 813 (D.Minn. 1994) (rates for government securities); Avco Corp. v. PPG Industries, Inc., 867 F.Supp. 84 (D.Mass.1994) (thr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Emerging scholars series: cross-border injunctions in U.S. patent cases and their enforcement abroad.
    • United States
    • Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Vol. 13 No. 2, June 2009
    • June 22, 2009
    ...J. L. & BUS. 549 (2008). (74.) Paice, 504 F.3d at 1314. (75.) Id. at 1315. (76.) 601 F. Supp. 964, 971 (C.D. Cal. 1985). (77.) 852 F. Supp. 813, 869 (D. Minn. (78.) Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. (Broadcom I), No. 05-CV-00467-JVS-RNB, slip op. at 3, 5, 7 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Qualcomm made......
  • Lost Profits Damages for Multicomponent Products: Clarifying the Debate.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 71 No. 6, June 2019
    • June 1, 2019
    ...of its own, and a correspondingly greater share of [the defendant infringer's] sales."); Schneider (Eur.) AG v. SciMed Life Sys., Inc., 852 F. Supp. 813, 858 (D. Minn. 1994) ("[W]here there are competitors other than the defendant in a product market, and all of the competitors are likely i......
  • Patents, trolls, and personal property: will eBay auction away a patent holder's right to exclude?
    • United States
    • Ave Maria Law Review Vol. 6 No. 1, September 2007
    • September 22, 2007
    ...944-46 (9th Cir. 1945) (discussing the concept that injunctions should be refused where they act against public health concerns). (121.) 852 F. Supp. 813 (D. Minn. (122.) Id. at 861-62. (123.) Id. at 862. (124.) Id., aff'd mem., 60 F.3d 839 (Fed. Cir. 1995). (125.) PAUL GOLDSTEIN, COPYRIGHT......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT