A Medical Device Daily
Medtronic ’s spinal business (Memphis, Tennessee) said that in the case ofDePuy Spine (Raynham, Massachusetts) and Biedermann Motech (Schwenningen, Germany), vs. Medtronic Sofamor Danek , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court of Massachusetts that Medtronic’s CD Horizon M8 and CD Horizon M10 multi axial screws do not infringe the DePuy ‘678 patent.
This decision also applies to Medtronic’s CD Horizon Legacy multi axial screws. These products are some of Medtronic’s largest selling spinal products and this decision means Medtronic will continue to supply them to surgeon customers.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the District Court’s determination that Vertex Reconstruction System screws, for use in the upper thoracic spine, do not literally infringe the ‘678 patent, but ruled that there is an issue of fact as to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents that can proceed to trial. Medtronic is confident in its position on the Vertex System and expects to prevail in a jury trial.
The court affirmed the jury’s verdict that Medtronic’s old-style CD Horizon MAS products, which are no longer sold in the U.S., infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. The company had previously reserved the $24.3 million judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict.
“We are pleased that the court has ruled that our biggest selling multi axial screws do not infringe DePuy’s patents,” said Pete Wehrly, senior vice president and president of the Spinal and Biologics business at Medtronic. “We respect the intellectual property of others and expect them to do the same. We are also confident that when a jury hears our position on the Vertex System, we will prevail on that complaint as well.”
No court date has been set on the Vertex System trial.
In other legalities:
• VNUS Medical Technologies (San Jose, California) said a federal judge ruled in its favor on the meaning of several claims in a lawsuit against several rival companies.
In October, VNUS filed patent infringement lawsuits againstAngioDynamics (Queensbury, New York) and Vascular Solutions (Minneapolis). VNUS already had a standing suit against Diomed Holdings (Andover, Massachusetts). The suits pertain to devices that use lasers to burn away tissue inside veins. The lawsuit asks for an injunction and monetary damages.
The decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California determined the meaning of certain words and phrases in the lawsuit, VNUS said. The ruling was favorable to the company, according to VNUS.
VNUS has filed patent litigation against the defendants, alleging they infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,638,273, 6,258,084, 6,752,803 and 6,769,433.
According to the company, the court agreed with VNUS Medical’s proposed constructions on key terms including:
— The patents-in-suit are not limited to catheters with electrodes.
— The claim term “energy application device” refers to a device for delivering energy, including, but not limited to, RF energy, microwaves, ultrasound, direct current, circulating heating fluid, radiant light, laser and thermal energy.
— The claim term “effectively occlude” is properly construed as “significantly reduce the flow of blood through the treated hollow anatomical structure, including, but not limited to, full-lumen closure.”
For its part, Diomed (Andover, Massachusetts) had a different take on the ruling.
“This claim construction ruling clears the way for Diomed to proceed with its defenses that the VNUS patents are not infringed by Diomed’s EVLT methodology and, further, that the VNUS patents-in-suit are deficient and should be struck down,” said David Swank, CFO of Diomed Holdings.