Ergo Licensing LLP v. Carefusion 303, Inc.
744 F. Supp. 2d 381
D. Me.2010Background
- This is a patent claim construction dispute in the D. Maine federal case Ergo Licensing LLP v. CareFusion 303, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,507,412.
- Plaintiffs Ergo Licensing and Dr. Uvo Holscher allege CareFusion’s infusion systems infringe the '412 patent.
- The court addresses five claimed terms: set, adjusting means, programmable control means, data input means, and flow measuring means.
- The court held a Markman hearing on Oct. 4, 2010, and issued constructions addressing these terms.
- Dependent Claims 16 and 19 influenced the interpretation of “set” by allowing a set to contain only one fluid flow source.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'set' in Claims 1/18 | Ergo: set means one or more. | CareFusion: set means two or more. | Set = one or more. |
| Scope of 'adjusting means' structure | Adjusting means is motor drive and equivalents. | Limited to self-locking with clutch or brake-enabled drives. | Drafted as motor drive and equivalents. |
| Meaning of 'programmable control means' | Structure is any programmable computer/control device. | No disclosed structure; indefinite. | Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6. |
| Meaning of 'data input means' | Structure includes discrete keys and a knob with an acknowledge key. | Limited to discrete keys and knob with acknowledge key. | Limited to discrete keys and a knob with an acknowledge key, and equivalents. |
| Meaning of 'flow measuring means' | Measuring flow via screw counters/drip counters. | No disclosed structure; implicit understanding not enough. | Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (principles for ordinary meaning and intrinsic evidence)
- CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (patentee as lexicographer affects claim scope)
- Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., 527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (lexicography and claim construction)
- Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (means-plus-function structure must be disclosed or indefiniteness)
- Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty. Ltd. v. Intl. Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (means-plus-function deficiency)
- Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu, 618 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (specification guides claim construction)
- Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (foundation for means-plus-function limitations)
- O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (limitations of means-plus-function scope)
- Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, 612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (standard for structural disclosure in means-plus-function terms)
- Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (reiterates indefiniteness for lacking disclosed structure)