Lexion Medical, LLC v. Northgate Technologies, Inc.
641 F.3d 1352
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- District court granted summary judgment that Northgate infringes the '474 patent based on its construction of 'having a temperature within 2°C of the predetermined temperature.'
- The accused Humi-Flow device heats and humidifies gas from an insufflator; gas is heated indirectly via a heater core to about body temperature.
- Lexion sued for infringement of claims 11 and 12; claim 11 requires sensing, heating, humidifying, and delivering gas within a 2°C range of a predetermined temperature.
- On remand, this court rejected Lexion's broader 'range of range' construction of 'predetermined temperature' and adopted a single temperature point; district court then allowed Burban’s second declaration under the new construction.
- Burban’s second declaration analyzed a subset of data at realistic flow rates and concluded the Humi-Flow delivered gas within 2°C of 37°C for the vast majority of time, with brief deviations during startup and flow changes.
- The court held there were no genuine material factual disputes; the Humi-Flow infringed under the proper construction, and affirmed the grant of summary judgment for literal infringement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of 'within 2°C of the predetermined temperature'? | Lexion argues the term allows fluctuations beyond 2°C within a broader range. | Northgate argues strict adherence to 2°C at all times is required. | Term allows minor fluctuations; not always within 2°C. |
| Was summary judgment proper under the construed limitation and record evidence? | Lexion contends the data show substantial within-2°C compliance. | Northgate contends data issues and start-up deviations undermine infringement. | No genuine disputes; Humi-Flow infringes under proper construction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim terms get ordinary meaning harmonized with intrinsic record)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs. Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc de novo review of claim construction)
- Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (context of the invention informs term meaning)
- ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (surrounding words considered to determine ordinary meaning)
- University of Pittsburgh v. Varian Med. Sys. Inc., 569 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (avoid needless recitation of facts when record supports judgment)