Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc.
131 F.4th 1330
Fed. Cir.2025Background
- Maquet Cardiovascular LLC sued Abiomed for infringing U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783, which covers an integrated guide mechanism for intravascular blood pump systems.
- The key dispute arose over the district court's construction of certain claim terms in the '783 patent, leading to stipulated non-infringement and a final judgment for Abiomed.
- The district court's constructions were primarily based on prosecution history disclaimer, relying on statements and amendments from related and ancestor patents.
- Maquet appealed, arguing the district court incorrectly applied prosecution disclaimer from unrelated or insufficiently similar claim language in ancestor patents.
- The Federal Circuit found key differences between the claim language at issue in the '783 patent and those ancestor patents, vacated the district court's non-infringement judgment as to the '783 patent, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'guide mechanism comprising a lumen' should include a limitation "not distal to the cannula" | No disclaimer, claims different | Disclaimer applies from '238 patent | No disclaimer, claims differ; limitation not imported |
| Whether "guide wire does not extend through free space between rotor blades" applies to '783 claims | Disclaimer inapplicable or not clear | Disclaimer from '728 patent applies | No clear disclaimer made in '728 prosecution; limitation not imported |
| Whether "guide wire does not pass through the rotor hub or catheter" in claim 24 adopts similar disclaimer | Claims different; no clear disclaimer | Disclaimer from '728 patent | No disclaimer; '728 prosecution history not relevant |
| Whether non-infringement ruling as to '238 patent should be disturbed | Not appealed, should remain | Affirm outright | Judgment as to '238 left undisturbed |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (ordinary meaning of a claim term must be considered in light of intrinsic evidence)
- Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (prosecution disclaimer attaches only for unequivocal disavowal)
- Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (prosecution disclaimer standard and review of intrinsic evidence)
- Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (context from prosecution history can inform claim meaning)
- Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prosecution history of related patents relevant only if claim limitations are substantially similar)
- Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (issues not raised on appeal are waived)
- Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (specification narrows claims only with clear exclusion language)
- Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (silence in response to examiner does not generally disclaim claim scope)