Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc.
659 F.3d 1084
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Marine Polymer owns U.S. Patent No. 6,864,245 ('245 patent) on p-GlcNAc用于 hemostasis.
- HemCon allegedly infringed claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17, and 20.
- District court construed “biocompatible” and found literal infringement based on HemCon’s products showing no detectable reactivity.
- HemCon petitioned for reexamination at the PTO; examiner initially rejected the claims as anticipated.
- PTO reexamination certificate issued later, canceling dependent claims 4, 5, 13, 14, 21, 22 and aligning with a different construction of “biocompatible.”
- This appeal addresses whether HemCon has absolute or equitable intervening rights, leading to reversal of infringement and remand; injunction and damages are vacated or remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HemCon has absolute intervening rights. | Marine Polymer argues no absolute rights since original claims were substantively changed. | HemCon contends reexamination changed claim scope via disavowal of original breadth. | Yes; absolute intervening rights apply, reversing infringement. |
| Whether original claims 12 and 20 were substantively changed on reexamination. | With district court construction, these claims narrowed. | No substantive change; language unchanged. | Substantive changes occurred via disavowal/estoppel, granting absolute intervening rights. |
| Whether equitable intervening rights should be awarded for post-reexamination products. | Equitable relief may apply based on manufacturing/ready-to-ship inventory. | Fact-intensive inquiry; remand necessary. | Remand to address whether HemCon is entitled to equitable intervening rights. |
| Whether the district court’s claim construction was correct regarding “biocompatible.” | Proposal aligned with no detectable reactivity. | District court erred; biocompatible includes some reactivity. | District court’s construction incorrect; original claims allowed some reactivity. |
| Mootness of validity challenge due to reexamination scope. | Invalidity arguments moot after reexamination. | N/A | Moot; validity not live where reexamined claims govern. |
Key Cases Cited
- BIC Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Windsurfing Int'l, Inc., 1 F.3d 1214 (Fed.Cir.1993) (absolute intervening rights protect pre-reissue products)
- Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342 (Fed.Cir.1998) (substantive scope change needed to trigger intervening rights)
- Bloom Eng'g Co. v. N. Am. Mfg. Co., 129 F.3d 1247 (Fed.Cir.1997) (substantive changes presumed when claims are amended on reexamination)
- Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524 (Fed.Cir.1996) (disavowal during reexamination narrows claim scope)
- American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc., 637 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2011) (disavowal of scope during reexamination governs intervening rights)
- CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356 (Fed.Cir.2007) (reexamination arguments can constitute disavowal of claim scope)
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858 (Fed.Cir.2004) (claim scope can be limited by reexamination arguments)
- Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing Inc., 756 F.2d 1574 (Fed.Cir.1985) (fact-intensive considerations for equitable intervening rights)
- Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaca Di Navigazione, 248 U.S. 9 (1918) (courts consider post-decree changes in law or fact)