Narrative Opinion Summary
In this patent infringement litigation, the plaintiff, Tyco Healthcare Group LP, accused the defendants, C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc., of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,562,051 related to surgical fasteners. The defendants counterclaimed false marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292 and raised defenses including noninfringement and invalidity. The court addressed various motions, including the defendants' motion for summary judgment on false marking, which was granted, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on double patenting, which was also granted following the filing of terminal disclaimers. The court interpreted the claim term 'fasteners having a helical configuration' as excluding screw-type fasteners, impacting the noninfringement defense. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike expert testimony on inequitable conduct but allowed bifurcation for trial purposes. The defendants' motions regarding the invalidity due to inadequate written description were denied as moot, while partial summary judgment on noninfringement was granted, focusing on the interpretation of claim terms. The case underscores the complexities of patent law, particularly in claim construction, inequitable conduct, and double patenting defenses.
Legal Issues Addressed
Claim Construction and Literal Infringementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court interprets 'fasteners having a helical configuration' as requiring a coiled shape, excluding screw-type fasteners, impacting the infringement analysis.
Reasoning: The term 'fasteners having a helical configuration' is interpreted to denote fasteners with a coiled shape, excluding screw-type fasteners.
Doctrine of Equivalents and Prosecution History Estoppelsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered whether amendments during prosecution estopped plaintiff from arguing equivalence for non-helical fasteners.
Reasoning: The court finds no evidence that the inventors intended to exclude screw-type fasteners through their amendment and, therefore, no presumption of estoppel exists regarding equivalence.
False Marking Under 35 U.S.C. § 292subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Defendants allege false marking of the AbsorbaTack product with the `051 patent, requiring proof of intent to deceive the public.
Reasoning: The defendants allege that the plaintiff falsely marks the AbsorbaTack with the `051 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292.
Inequitable Conduct in Patent Prosecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Defendants claim inequitable conduct by the plaintiff, arguing intentional withholding of information related to patent rejections and disclaimers.
Reasoning: They argue that this conduct constitutes inequitable behavior that renders the `051 patent claims unenforceable.
Patent Infringement and Double Patentingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the defendants' double patenting defense, arguing that terminal disclaimers filed corrected any potential double patenting issues.
Reasoning: The plaintiff seeks summary judgment claiming the defendants' double patenting defense is moot due to the disclaimers.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluates whether there are genuine issues of material fact to grant summary judgment, with the burden on the moving party to show absence of such issues.
Reasoning: Summary judgment is granted only when the evidence—including pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, and admissions—demonstrates no genuine issue of material fact, allowing the moving party to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.