Voda v. Cordis Corp.
| Decision Date | 18 August 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-1297.,No. 2007-1343.,2007-1297.,2007-1343. |
| Citation | 536 F.3d 1311 |
| Parties | Jan K. VODA, M.D., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. CORDIS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Mitchell G. Stockwell, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, of Atlanta, GA, argued for plaintiff-cross appellant. With him on the brief was D. Clay Holloway. Of counsel was Jacqueline R. Knapp. Of counsel on the brief was John A. Kenney, McAfee & Taft, of Oklahoma City, OK.
John M. DiMatteo, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, of New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Kelsey I. Nix, Diane C. Ragosa, and Adam R. Steinert. Of counsel on the brief was Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Sidley Austin LLP, of Chicago, IL.
Mathias W. Samuel, Fish & Richardson P.C., of Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. With him on the brief were John A. Dragseth and Christian A. Chu.
Before MAYER, BRYSON, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
This is a patent infringement case involving catheters used in interventional cardiology. The issues on appeal and cross-appeal include claim construction, patent validity, infringement, willfulness, and the district court's denial of a permanent injunction. Because we find no reversible error in the decision below with respect to the issues of claim construction, patent validity, and the denial of a permanent injunction, we affirm those aspects of the judgment. The judgment of infringement, however, is affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part. Lastly, because the willfulness finding was based on a jury instruction that is erroneous under our intervening decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir. 2007) (en banc), we vacate the judgment with respect to willfulness and remand for reconsideration under the Seagate standard.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,Dr. Jan K. Voda, M.D., ("Voda") sued Cordis Corporation ("Cordis") for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,445,625 ("the '625 patent"), 6,083,213 ("the '213 patent"), and 6,475,195 ("the '195 patent") in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.1 Specifically, Voda alleged that Cordis's "XB" catheters infringe claim 1 of the '625 patent, claims 1 through 5 of the '213 patent, and claims 1 through 6 of the '195 patent. The parties tried the case to a jury, and it returned a verdict finding that Cordis willfully infringed all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit and that claims 1 through 3 of the '213 patent are not invalid. The jury also determined that Voda was entitled to a reasonable royalty of 7.5% of Cordis's gross sales of the infringing XB catheters. Following the jury verdict, the district court denied Cordis's motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") that claims 1 through 3 of the fees but denied Voda's request for a permanent injunction.
On appeal, Cordis challenges the district court's construction of the term "along a line" in claims 1 through 3 of the '213 patent. Cordis also challenges the district court's denial of JMOL that claims 1 through 3 of the '213 patent are invalid and that Cordis's XB catheters do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. Finally, Cordis argues that the finding of willfulness should be vacated on the ground that the jury instruction on willfulness was erroneous under our recent Seagate decision. On cross-appeal, Voda argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying Voda's request for a permanent injunction. Voda also argues that the district court erred in construing the "substantially straight leg" limitation in claims 4 and 5 of the '213 patent and claims 1 through 6 of the '195 patent.
This court has jurisdiction over this appeal and cross-appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Cardiac guide catheters have been used to diagnose and treat heart disease since the late 1960s. A cardiac guide catheter is a long thin plastic tube with a preformed tip that comes in a variety of sizes and configurations. The method of using a cardiac guide catheter involves first inserting a wire into the catheter to straighten the preformed tip. Once the wire is inside the catheter, the catheter is inserted into the femoral artery and advanced to the aorta of the heart. The catheter is further advanced up the descending aorta, over the aortic arch, and down the ascending aorta until the tip of the catheter reaches a position at or near the opening (i.e., "ostium") of the coronary artery. The wire is then removed from the catheter, which allows the tip of the catheter to return to its preformed shape. As the catheter tip returns to its shape, it moves into the desired position: specifically, the tip of the catheter is inserted into the coronary ostium while another portion of the catheter rests against the opposing wall of the aorta to provide support. Hereinafter, the portion of a guide catheter that rests against the opposing wall of the aorta is referred to as the "contact portion" of the guide catheter.
The three patents-in-suit are all directed to an "advantageous orientation of the guide catheter in the aortic complex." '625 patent col.8 ll.51-52; '213 patent col.8 ll.21-22; '195 patent col.8 ll.25-26. All three patents issued from continuation-in-part applications of a common parent application, namely, U.S. Patent App. No. 07/622,873.
The '625 patent claims guide catheters with "a significant change in the overall shape/configuration" of the catheter in order to "maximize backup support for distal advancement of a balloon catheter through the guide catheter." '625 patent col.7 ll.60-67. Claim 1 of the '625 patent reads as follows:
1. A femoral approach angioplasty guide catheter adapted for selective catheterization of a left main coronary artery within a cardiovascular system comprising:
an elongate flexible tubular member in a relaxed state prior to insertion in the cardiovascular system further comprising in consecutive arrangement:
a first straight proximal portion extending distally from a proximal end of the tubular member;
a second straight portion joined to the first straight portion and having a length of about 1.5 to 2.5 centimeters;
a tertiary curved portion defining a junction of the first straight portion and the second straight portion and defining a vertex of an obtuse angle of 130° to 150° between the first and second straight portions;
a secondary curved portion joined to the second straight portion and having an arcuate curvature of about 150° to 180° and a radius of curvature of about 1 centimeter;
a third straight portion joined to the secondary curved portion;
wherein the first straight portion, second straight portion, third straight portion, and fourth straight portion all lie in generally the same plane, the third straight portion and the fourth straight portion extending slightly out of plane to the extent that the fourth straight portion overlaps the first straight portion, and wherein the length of the fourth straight portion is approximately equal to the sum of the length of the third straight portion and the radius of curvature of the secondary curved portion.
'625 patent cols.32-33 (emphasis added). In the written description of the '625 patent, the "second straight portion" is identified as the portion of the catheter that engages the wall of the aorta opposite the coronary ostium during use (along with a proximal portion of the secondary curve portion). Id. at col.9 l.50-col.10 l.4. The engagement of the second straight portion with the wall of the aorta is described as providing "a large area of general backup support . . . which makes it quite difficult to dislodge the guide catheter from its desired orientation" during use. Id. Cordis argues that its XB catheters do not infringe claim 1 of the '625 patent because they do not meet the "second straight portion" limitation. For discussion purposes, this opinion will refer to claim 1 of the '625 patent as the "straight claim."
Claims 1 through 3 of the '213 patent are method claims. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method for advancing a catheter through the aorta and into a coronary ostium, the aorta having an arch and an inner wall opposite the ostium, comprising the steps of:
providing a catheter including an elongate catheter body having a proximal end and a distal end and having a central lumen from the proximal end to the distal end adapted to slidably receive a therapeutic catheter, the catheter body including a tip at the distal end of the catheter body adapted to removably lodge in the coronary artery ostium;
advancing the catheter body distal end through the aortic arch; and
engaging the aorta inner wall with a portion of the catheter body such that when the distal end of the catheter is positioned in the ostium, the catheter body engages the opposite wall of the aorta along a line having a length of about 1.5 cm or greater.
'213 patent col.30 ll.49-67 (emphasis added). With respect to claims 1 through 3 of the '213 patent, Cordis argues (1) that the district court misconstrued "along a line"; (2) that Cordis does not infringe claims 1 through 3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carotek, Inc. v. Kobayashi Ventures, LLC
...it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result.” Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). 22. Although the term “extract” is not used in every claim in the ' 905 Patent, it......
-
Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.
...separately violates the Seventh Amendment. Precedent of this court, nonetheless, indicates that it does not. See Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2008). Rather, we took this case en banc to determine whether we have jurisdiction when willfulness issues are outstanding and ......
-
Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.
...jury instructions. See KineticConcepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc. , 554 F.3d 1010, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ; Voda v. Cordis Corp. , 536 F.3d 1311, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Fifth Circuit asks whether "the ‘charge as a whole leaves [the court] with substantial and ineradicable doubt wh......
-
Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. v. Gordini U.S.A. Inc.
...the doctrine of equivalents to establish infringement is limited by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.” Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1324–25 (Fed.Cir.2008) (citing Warner–Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 30, 117 S.Ct. 1040). Prosecution history estoppel operates by “barring an equi......
-
Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages After In Re Seagate: An Empirical Study
...discretion.”). 273. See, e.g. , Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815, 822 (Fed. Cir. 1992). 274. See Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (vacating finding of willfulness and remanding for determination when the district court improperly instructed the jur......
-
Chapter §20.02 Injunctions
...harm cannot be shown if sales would be lost regardless of the infringing conduct. Apple I, 678 F.3d at 1324 (citing Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that "the district court did not clearly err in finding that [the plaintiff] failed to show that [defend......
-
Chapter §16.03 Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
...as a whole.").[90] Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple Inc., 692 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added) (citing Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).[91] Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40 (1997).[92] Consider a claim to "an isolated an......
-
Chapter §7.02 Anticipation
...that "[a]nticipation is a question of fact; we review the jury's verdict for substantial evidence") (citing Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).[152] See Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that "[a]nticipation is a questi......