Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.
658 F.3d 1347
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Cordis appeals JMOL that BSC does not literally infringe claim 25 of the '370 patent and the district court's denial of inverse doctrine of equivalents.
- BSC cross-appeals the district court's finding that the '312 and '370 patents are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
- The '370 patent claims a stent with undulating longitudinal sections; claim 25 specifies a U-shaped curve for each cell's undulating section.
- The district court construed 'undulating' to require at least a crest and a trough, implying multiple waves and a change in direction.
- On remand, the district court found no clear and convincing evidence of deceptive intent and found no inequitable conduct tainting the '370 patent.
- This court affirms the JMOL ruling of no literal infringement and affirm the unenforceability ruling as not proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the NIR stent literally infringe claim 25? | Cordis argues undulating requires crest and trough with directional change. | BSC contends district court correctly construed undulating and found no infringement. | No literal infringement; JMOL affirmed. |
| Did the district court properly construe 'undulating' for analysis of infringement? | Cordis argues the court erred in narrowing the term beyond ordinary meaning. | BSC contends construction of crest and trough is correct and supported by prosecution history. | Construction affirmed; no reversible error. |
| Are the '312' and '370' patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct? | Cordis asserts Hillstead undisclosed during '312 prosecution taints '370 prosecution. | BSC argues no clear and convincing evidence of intent to deceive; proceedings were properly handled. | Not unenforceable; inequitable conduct not proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claim construction reviewed de novo)
- LNP Eng'g Plastics, Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 275 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (JMOL review standard and substantial evidence)
- Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (evidentiary standard for infringement decisions)
- Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (clear and convincing standard for inequitable conduct; specific intent to deceive)