749 F. Supp. 2d 210
D. Del.2010Background
- Braun sues Terumo for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,264,613 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
- Six motions are before the court: Terumo non-infringement, Braun validity (112 defenses), Braun invalidity (anticipation/obviousness), Braun strike, Braun Beaman Daubert, Braun Kulli Daubert.
- The court has construed the asserted claims previously and now analyzes infringement, validity, and daubert issues under summary judgment standards.
- Terumo argues Surshield does not literally or under the doctrine of equivalents infringe claims 1-6, 8, 20-21, and 24-35; Braun argues infringement on multiple dependent claims.
- Braun seeks invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and under §§ 102/103; Terumo contends there are genuine factual disputes requiring trial.
- The court denies in part and grants in part some motions, with various issues reserved for trial on factual questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Surshield infringe claims 1-6, 8, 20-21, 24-35? | Braun argues Surshield meets all claim elements or is an equivalent. | Terumo contends Surshield fails to meet essential claim limitations (radially extending members, wall geometry, attachment). | Genuine factual disputes preclude summary judgment. |
| Are the 112 defenses/claims of lack of enablement and written description for the '613 patent patent-eligible? | Braun asserts no genuine 112 issues; claims are properly described and enabled. | Terumo argues factual disputes about enablement and written description exist. | Denial of Braun's 112 validity motion; issues to be resolved at trial. |
| Is there anticipation or obviousness for the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103? | Braun contends certain claims are anticipated/obvious over cited references. | Terumo contends there are material disputes on prior art scope and intersections, making obviousness question for trial. | Claims 1 and 9 not anticipated; anticipation granted in part; obviousness issues remain for trial. |
| Should Braun's Motion to Strike Beaman's declaration be granted? | Braun seeks exclusion of new opinions in Beaman declaration as untimely. | Terumo contends opinions were fairly disclosed and rebuttal testimony remains permissible. | Motion to Strike denied. |
| Should Beaman and Kulli Daubert challenges be granted? | Braun seeks exclusion of Beaman and Kulli testimony as unreliable or improperly privileged. | Terumo argues Beaman is qualified and testimony is admissible; Kulli privilege issues should narrow testimony. | Beaman testimony admitted; Kulli testimony limited to avoid privileged communications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard—no genuine issue of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (fact disputes must be material to survive summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden of proof at summary judgment on issue of fact)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (credibility judgments not to be weighed on summary judgment)
- Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (U.S. 2002) (prosecution history estoppel doctrine)
- TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 608 F.3d 1333 (Federal Circuit 2010) (anticipation/obviousness framework and facts)
- ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (written description vs enablement—fact-based inquiry)
- Alcon, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 664 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D. Del. 2009) (written description/enablement analysis in district court)
- Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (dependent claims require limitations of base claims)