Scimed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.

242 F.3d 1337 (2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P owns three U.S. patents for balloon dilatation catheters. Balloon dilatation catheters are used in coronary angioplasty procedures to remove restrictions in coronary arteries. P's patents describe catheters having three sections: a first shaft section, a second shaft section, and a transition section between the two. The first shaft section is long, relatively stiff, and generally tubular. The second shaft section is relatively flexible and contains a balloon at the end, which is inflated to relieve the arterial restriction. The transition section connects the first and second shaft sections and provides a gradual transition in stiffness between the two shaft sections. The catheters contain two passageways or lumens. The first lumen, the guide-wire lumen, is used to guide the catheter through a patient's arteries to the site of the arterial restriction. The second lumen is the inflation lumen. It extends through all sections of the catheter and terminates in a connection with the balloon. The balloon is inflated by forcing fluid into the inflation lumen. The balloon then compresses the material restricting the artery, thereby relieving the restriction. Only two arrangements of the two lumens are known and practiced in the art. In the dual (or adjacent) lumen configuration, the two lumens are positioned side-by-side within the catheter. In the coaxial lumen configuration, the guidewire lumen runs inside the inflation lumen; in that configuration, the inflation lumen, viewed in cross-section, is annular in shape. D employs only the dual lumen configuration and that the preferred embodiment described in the P's patents employs the coaxial lumen configuration. P sued D for infringement. Based on the language in the common written descriptions, the district court construed the asserted claims of the patents to be limited to catheters with coaxial lumens, and not to read on catheters with a dual lumen configuration. The court held that the language 'leaves no doubt that a person skilled in the art would conclude that the inventor envisioned only one design for the catheters taught in P's patents--an intermediate sleeve section containing two . . . lumens arranged coaxially.' P conceded that D did not literally infringe any of the asserted claims. The court held that the two-lumen arrangements were sufficiently different that no reasonable jury could find the accused catheters to infringe P's patents under the doctrine of equivalents. P appealed.