Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a patent infringement dispute where Minerva Surgical, Inc. alleged that Hologic, Inc. and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC infringed on U.S. Patent No. 9,186,208, which relates to a surgical device for endometrial ablation. The District Court of Delaware granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the patent claims were anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The court determined that Minerva's public disclosure of the device at the AAGL 2009 conference constituted public use more than one year before the critical date of the patent. Minerva had exhibited fifteen devices openly without confidentiality agreements, and the technology was considered 'ready for patenting' due to the existence of working prototypes and sufficient technical documentation. The court found no genuine issues of material fact regarding the public use and readiness for patenting, leading to the invalidation of the patent claims. Minerva's appeal contended errors in the summary judgment regarding the public use bar, but the court upheld its initial decision, rendering Minerva's additional arguments, including the exclusion of expert testimony on the doctrine of equivalence, moot.
Legal Issues Addressed
Invalidity Due to Anticipationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the ’208 patent claims were anticipated because the public disclosure of the Aurora device included all elements of claim 13 more than one year before the patent application.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court affirmed that Minerva’s disclosure of the Aurora device constituted 'public use' and that the invention was 'ready for patenting,' leading to the conclusion that the ’208 patent is anticipated under the public use bar of 102(b).
Public Use Bar under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the display and demonstration of the Aurora device at the AAGL 2009 conference constituted public use more than one year prior to the priority date of the ’208 patent.
Reasoning: The district court found that the Aurora device's disclosure at AAGL 2009 constituted 'public use' under 102(b), as it was shown to individuals other than the inventor without confidentiality restrictions.
Readiness for Patentingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Aurora device was deemed ready for patenting because Minerva had created working prototypes and relevant technical documentation demonstrating reduction to practice before the critical date.
Reasoning: The invention was deemed ready for patenting because it was both reduced to practice and sufficiently documented, enabling a person skilled in the art to practice the invention related to the disputed SDMP term of claim 13.
Summary Judgment Standard of Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The summary judgment was reviewed under Third Circuit law, examining if there are genuine issues of material fact, allowing the movant to receive judgment as a matter of law.
Reasoning: The standard of review for the summary judgment grant follows Third Circuit law, which examines if there are genuine issues of material fact, allowing the movant to receive judgment as a matter of law.