Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
653 F.3d 1296
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- BD appeals district judgment in RTI suit over retractable syringes; jury found BD infringed the '733, '077, and '224 patents and the asserted claims were not invalid for anticipation or obviousness; district court denied JMOL and a new trial; district court construed key terms including 'retainer member' and 'body' and excluded RTI discovery responses; trial evidence centered on the bridge embodiment and the one-piece body feature; RTI asserted infringement against BD’s Integra syringes (3 mL and 1 mL) with differing plunger mechanisms; BD challenged both claim constructions and certain evidentiary rulings; the court ultimately reversed in part and affirmed in part, and ordered no costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of 'retainer member' and 'body' | BD argues separate parts required and one-piece body not implied. | RTI contends overlap allowed and body not limited to one-piece. | The court redefines 'retainer member' not require separate parts; 'body' limited to one-piece structure. |
| Exclusion of devices operating by 'cutting' from scope | BD contends claims exclude cutting as a matter of law. | RTI argues no express disavowal of cutting and bridge embodiment covers it. | No broad disclaimer; cutting falls within scope; district court proper. |
| Infringement by 3 mL Integra under revised body construction | RTI infringes under doctrine of equivalents. | Under one-piece body, literal infringement unlikely; equivalents barred by specification. | 3 mL Integra does not infringe under doctrine of equivalents; reversed JMOL on literal infringement. |
| Infringement by 1 mL Integra | BD argues noninfringement; | Court should uphold district court. | Court affirms denial of JMOL for 1 mL Integra infringement. |
| Invalidity of claim 25 of the '077 patent | Power, McGary, Pressly anticipate/obviousness. | Anticipation and obviousness not met by references; proper combination argued. | Not anticipated or obvious; arguments preserved and rejected on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358 (Fed.Cir.2003) (anticipation standard and facts review)
- Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (obviousness framework and factual findings)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.2005) (claim construction in light of the specification)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed.Cir.1998) (claim construction de novo on appeal (en banc))
- L.B. Plastics, Inc. v. Amerimax Home Prods., Inc., 499 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.2007) (doctrine of equivalents limitations informed by specification)
- J. M. Corp. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 269 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir.2001) (equivalents limitations based on specification)
- Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed.Cir.2008) (standard for evidentiary and JMOL review)
- Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361 (Fed.Cir.2005) (claim differentiation and written description interplay)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.2005) (central authority on intrinsic record interpretation)
- Epistar Corp. v. Intl. Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321 (Fed.Cir.2009) (disavowal of claim scope requires manifest exclusion)