557 F. App'x 950
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Otto Bock appeals a district court denial of a preliminary injunction against Össur for alleged infringement of the ’726 patent.
- The ’726 patent covers an artificial limb vacuum system that manages residual limb volume, incorporating a liner, a single socket, a vacuum source, and integration with the ’274 application.
- Claims 1 and 10 recite a seal means and means to maintain a vacuum; dependent claims 6, 9, 15, 18 add limitations including an annular seal and a weight-actuated vacuum pump.
- Össur’s accused products combine the Iceross Seal-In V liner with a Unity vacuum module; Unity uses a heel-actuated membrane vacuum approach.
- The district court construed ‘seal means’ as a narrow annular seal with rectangular cross-section and found Össur’s seal non-identical/non-equivalent to the claimed seal; it construed ‘means to maintain a vacuum’ to incorporate the weight-actuated vacuum pump disclosed in the ’274 application and found non-identical/non-equivalent with Unity.
- The court held Otto Bock unlikely to prove infringement, and denied the preliminary injunction; Otto Bock appealed and the panel affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to construe seal means | Bock: broad, annular seal between liner and socket. | Össur: patent links to a narrow annular seal with rectangular cross-section. | Seal means construed as narrow annular seal; Seal-In V not identical/equivalent. |
| How to construe means to maintain a vacuum | Bock: encompasses weight-actuated vacuum pumps as disclosed in the ’274 application. | Össur: only structure described is weight-actuated pump in ’274; Unity not equivalent. | Means to maintain a vacuum limited to weight-actuated pump as disclosed; Unity not identical or equivalent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction standards; use of written description)
- Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for injunction factors)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claim construction de novo on appeal)
- Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp., 185 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (means-plus-function infringement requires identical/alternative structure)
- Atmel Corp. v. Info Storage Devices, 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (non-patent publication incorporated by reference cannot add structure to means-plus-function)
- Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for preliminary injunctions)