Narrative Opinion Summary
In a patent dispute involving Norian Corporation and Stryker Corporation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the interpretation of claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,002,065, which pertains to kits for preparing calcium phosphate compositions used as bone cements. The dispute centered on whether the term 'a sodium phosphate' in the patent claims covered solutions made from multiple types of sodium phosphates or was limited to a single type. The district court initially granted summary judgment of noninfringement, interpreting the claim to require only a single sodium phosphate type, and this decision was affirmed upon appeal. Norian argued that the claim should include mixtures of sodium phosphates, but the court relied on the patent's specification and prosecution history, which indicated a singular interpretation. The court also rejected Norian's arguments under the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel. As a result, the appellate court upheld the summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Stryker Corporation, confirming that the patent claims were correctly interpreted to only cover solutions with a single type of sodium phosphate.
Legal Issues Addressed
Doctrine of Equivalentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Norian's attempt to claim infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was rejected due to the prosecution history estoppel, which precluded such arguments.
Reasoning: Norian also argued against the district court's claim construction and sought to prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Patent Claim Interpretationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court interpreted 'a sodium phosphate' as referring to a single sodium phosphate, not a mixture of different sodium phosphates, based on the claim language and prosecution history.
Reasoning: The typical interpretation of 'a' as 'one or more' does not apply here, given the specification and prosecution history indicate a singular meaning.
Prosecution History Estoppelsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Norian, by amending the claim language during prosecution, had surrendered the right to claim solutions involving multiple types of sodium phosphates.
Reasoning: Norian effectively disclaimed that scope, invoking prosecution history estoppel, which presumes surrender of all subject matter between the original and amended claims.
Use of 'Consisting Of' in Patent Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The phrase 'consisting of' was interpreted to limit the claim to a solution made of water and a single sodium phosphate type, which was central to affirming noninfringement.
Reasoning: The court pointed out that claim 8's phrasing—using 'at least one' for calcium or phosphoric acid sources but 'a' for sodium phosphate—indicates that only one type of sodium phosphate is intended in the solution.