Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp.
717 F.3d 929
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Regents of the University of Minnesota owns the ’281 and ’291 septal occluder patents and accuses AGA Medical of infringement.
- District court construed disputed ’291/’281 terms and granted summary judgment of noninfringement for the ’291 patent and anticipated invalidity for the ’281 patent.
- ’291 claims require two disks affixed to form a conjoint disk; the two disks must be discrete before affixation, per district court.
- ’281 claims describe two self-expanding members with a means-plus-function limitation; the prior art Lock device allegedly anticipates these claims.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirms both the invalidity of the asserted ’281 claims as anticipated by Lock and the noninfringement of the ’291 patent under the district court’s claim construction.
- The court separately analyzes prosecution history, disclaimer effects, and the meanings of “in communication with” and “substantial portion” in the context of the Lock/King prior art.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ’291 patent requires two physically separate disks. | University argues claims cover two affixed disks. | AGA device is a one-piece mesh, not two disks. | Yes; claims require two physically separate disks. |
| Whether the district court correctly construed the ’291 term “conjoint disk.” | Construction should not import external limitations. | Two disks must be discrete as described in the specification. | District court correct; two physically separate disks. |
| Whether Lock anticipates the asserted claims of the ’281 patent. | Lock discloses two communicating central portions compatible with claims. | Lock includes a radial frame, not a means-plus-function element or communication structure as claimed. | Lock anticipates claims 1, 4, and 5; claims invalid as anticipated. |
| Whether prosecution disclaimer from the ’951/King lineage restricts the ’281 patent’s scope. | Disclaimers carry forward to limit equivalents for later patents within the same family. | Later ’281 claims use different language; disclaimer does not carry over. | Disclaimer does not carry forward to the ’281 patent; anticipation stands. |
| Whether the meaning of “in communication with” and “substantial portion” in the Lock disclosure supports anticipation. | Lock’s hub communicates movement between central portions of its members. | Disputed, but Lock still satisfies the limitation. | Lock satisfies the limitations; district court’s anticipation finding affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (claim construction is a matter of law)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (no deference on claim construction on appeal)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (the specification is the best guide to claim meaning)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (intrinsic evidence governs claim construction)
- Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo-Trans, Inc., 93 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claims are construed in context of specification)
- Miken Composites, L.L.C. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 515 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (ordinary meaning governs structural terms)
- Hazani v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (structural vs. process limitations in product claims)
- 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (structural limits and product considerations default to ordinary meaning)
- J&M Corp. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 269 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prosecution history and equivalents limits)
- Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (divisions and claim language differences affect disclaimers)
- Saunders Grp., Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (disclaimer directed to specific claim limitations, not the invention as a whole)
- Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (prosecution history applicability to later patents with similar limitations)
- Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prosecution history linkage when limitations are in common)
- Verizon Sch. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (prosecution history and disclaimer scope across related patents)