Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01431/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01431-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE

HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

No. C 03-1431 SBA

 

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 273, 333]

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Baxter International, Inc. and Baxter Healthcare

Corporation's (collectively, "Defendants" or "Baxter") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Infringement

[Docket No. 273] and Plaintiffs Fresenius MedicalCare Holdings,Inc. and Fresenius USA,Inc.'s(collectively,

"Plaintiffs" or "Fresenius") Opposition to Baxter's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion

for Summary Judgment on Non-Infringement [Docket No. 333]. 

Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties in the papers submitted to the

Court, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. The Court hereby GRANTS

IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Baxter's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Infringement [Docket

No. 273]and GRANTS IN PART ANDDENIES IN PART Fresenius' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

on Non-Infringement [Docket No. 333]. 

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background 

Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Fresenius USA, Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.

(collectively "Fresenius") initiated this suit on April 4, 2003 by filing a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The claim term "means for controlling a dialysate parameter selected from a group consisting of

dialysate temperature and dialysate concentration" in Claim 26(a) ofthe '434 Patent was construed as follows:

(1) the functionof "means for controlling a dialysate parameter selected from the group consisting ofdialysate

temperature and dialysate concentration"was construed as controlling dialysate temperature and/or controlling

dialysate concentration; (2) the corresponding structure forthe controlofdialysate temperature was construed

as requiring a microprocessor, a heater, and a temperature-sensing device; and (3) the corresponding structure

forthe controlofdialysate concentrationwas construed asrequiringa microprocessor and a concentrate pump.

2

Non-infringement and Invalidity. Fresenius cited five patents in its complaint: (1) U.S. Patent No. 5,247,434

("'434 Patent"); (2) U.S. Patent No. 5,326,476 ("'476 Patent"); (3) U.S. Patent No. 6,284,131 B1 ("'131

Patent"); (4) U.S. Patent No. 5,486,286 ("'286 Patent"); and (5) U.S. Patent No. 5,744,027 ("'027 Patent")

(collectively "patents-in-suit"). 

On May 14, 2003, Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs Baxter International, Inc. and Baxter Healthcare

Corporation(collectively "Baxter") answered and counterclaimed thatFresenius' hemodialysis machinesinfringe

four of the five patents. On October 20, 2003, Baxter amended its Answer and Counterclaims to assert

infringement of the '286 Patent. 

Each of the patents-in-suit relates to hemodialysis machines. 

A claim construction hearing was held on October 14, 2004 on certain disputed terms. After the Court

issued its claim construction ruling on November 22, 2004, the parties met and conferred in order to narrow

the selection of additional terms to be construed by the Court.

On January 5, 2005, Baxter filed a Motion for PartialSummary Judgment ofInfringement with respect

to Claim 1 of the '131 Patent and Claim 26 of the '434 Patent. 

On January 6, 2005, the parties requested that the Court construe one additional claim term: "means

for controlling a dialysate parameter selected from a group consisting of dialysate temperature and dialysate

concentration" in Claim 26(a) ofthe '434 Patent. On March 1, 2005 this Court issued an order construing the

disputed claim term in Claim 26(a) of the '434 patent.1

On February 15, 2005, Fresenius filed aCross-MotionforSummaryJudgmentwithrespectto whether

Fresenius infringed Claim 1 of the '131 Patent and Claim 26 of the '434 Patent. 

B. Factual Background

Hemodialysis removes blood frompatients suffering fromkidney failure, cleans it, extracts any excess

fluid from it, and returns it to the patient. (476:123-26, 185-86, 189-90.) Hemodialysis machines perform

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

these functions for people whose kidneys have failed. (See Decl. ofRichard A. Ward ("Ward Decl.") at ¶ 7.)

To accomplish toxin removal, hemodialysis machines circulate the patient's blood outside his or her body, and

direct it through a filter known as a "dialyser." (Id.) The dialyzer consists of hollow fibers bathed in a solution

known as "dialysate." (Id.) The blood passes through the inside of the hollow fibers, and, because of the

chemical composition of the blood compared to the dialysate, the toxins in the blood diffuse through the walls

of the hollow fibers into the dialysate. (Id.) Hemodialysis machines replace the second kidney function,

removal of excess water from the blood, by a process known as "ultrafiltration" (often abbreviated as "UF").

(Id. at ¶ 8.) Ultrafiltration works by creating a pressure difference between the inside of the hollow fibers

(where the blood flows) and the outside of the hollow fibers (where the dialysate flows). (Id.) With greater

pressure inside the fibersthan outside, water in the blood is forced through the walls of the hollow fibers. (Id.

¶¶ 7-8.) 

The patents-in-suit disclose and claim various improvementsto hemodialysis machinesthatallowbetter

control, operation, and monitoring ofa hemodialysis treatment. (434:Abstract, 1:5-8, 476:Abstract, 1:12-15,

286:Abstract, 1:8-11, 027:Abstract, 1:8-11, and 131:Abstract, 1:12-15.) For example, they disclose

integrating a touch screen interface through which treatment parameters can be set, monitored, and changed.

(131.1, 434.26.)

A touch screen interface on a hemodialysis machine provides a quicker, safer, and easier way for a

nurse to control the machine's operations and set treatment parameters by touching specific buttons on the

screen. (2008K Op. Manual at 20, 49; 476:104-05.) Because a variety of screens can be displayed and

certain buttons can be made to appear only when needed, a touch screen interface also allows an infinite

number of buttons (and, consequently, functionality) without consuming valuable space on the hemodialysis

machine. (2008K Op. Manual at 20, 49; 476:104-05).

Another improvement claimed by the patents-in-suit is the provision of a convenient method by which

data characterizing a profile parameter can be changed through the use of bar graphs displayed on the touch

screen. (131:9:17-34.) Specifically, in the preferred embodiment, profiled parameters are entered by simply

tracing the desired profile curve on the touch screen. (131:9:32-34.) 

The Fresenius 2008K (the "2008K") is a hemodialysis machine with a user interface that includes a

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 3 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2Kt/V is a measurement reflecting the efficiency of the dialysis treatment. (Crnkovich Decl. at ¶ 32.)

"K"is a performance value ofthe artificialkidney to remove toxins fromthe patients in units ofml/min, "t" is time

in minutes, and "V" is an approximation of the amount of water in the patient's body in milliliters. (Id.) 

4

touch screen. (Decl. of Martin Crnkovich ("CrnkovichDecl.") at ¶ 35.). The 2008K touch screen allows the

user to access different "screens" by pressing specific identified sites on the touch screen along the bottomedge

called "buttons." (Decl. of Thomas Kelly ("Kelly Decl.") at DX4.) Pressing these buttons allows the user to

access different screens, such as the "Home" screen and "UF Profile" screen. (Id.) In order to change

parameters on the 2008K, the operator must first select the parameter by touching the "window" in which the

parameter value is displaced. (Crnkovich Decl. at ¶ 35; Kelly Decl. at Ex. 1 (Operator's Manual at 49).) The

operator must then press numbers on a keypad located below the touch screen and then touch the "Confirm"

button. (Crnkovich Decl. at ¶ 35.) 

The 2008K "UF Profile" screen also displays icons that allow the user to select a particular program

for UF profiling. (Crnkovich Decl. at ¶ 6.) These icons allow users to choose, visually, the desired type of

dialysis program. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Pressing any one of the icons invokes a series of computer instructions for

various calculations performed inside the machine for purposes of operation during the dialysis procedure.

(Crnkovich Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 11.) 

The 2008K also has a Sodium VariationSystem("SVS") screen. (Crnkovich Decl. at ¶ 28.) The SVS

screen shows four icons across the top and an enlarged image ofthe icon selected by the operator. (Id.) The

icons depict the mathematical equations used to operate the machine. (Id.)

Additionally, the 2008K has "Blood Pressure" and "Kt/V"2screens. (Crnkovich Decl. at ¶¶ 29, 30.)

With respect to the Blood Pressure screen, the 2008K measures blood pressure periodically and permits the

user to set alarm limits around blood pressure readouts. (Crnkovich Decl. at ¶ 30.) Changes to the blood

pressure alarm limits do not cause the machine to operate differently in any way. (Id.) The display on the

Blood Pressure screen is merely the display of the patient's blood pressure as historically monitored. (Id.)

With respect to the Kt/V screen, there are three parameters that are displayed: (1) the number ofKt/V tests,

(2) the target Kt/V, and (3)the volume. (Id. at ¶ 32.) Although these parameters do not vary over the course

of the treatment, the Kt/V screen does show a graphical display of the actual Kt/V measurement and the

projected total Kt/V forthe treatment. (Id. at ¶ 33.) However, these measurements are not "parameters" that

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 4 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

the user can set. (Id.) Instead, the screen displays the historical results and then projects how those results

will carry forward over time. (Id.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Legal Standard For Summary Judgment in Patent Disputes

Under FederalRule ofCivil Procedure 56, a court may properly grant a motion forsummary judgment

ifthe pleadings and materials demonstrate that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A

dispute about a materialfact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdictfor

the nonmoving party." Anderson v. LibertyLobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Summary judgment may

be granted infavorof a defendant on an ultimate issue offactwhere the defendant carries its burden of "pointing

out to the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex,

477 U.S. at 325; see Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

To withstand a motion forsummary judgment, the non-movant mustshow that there are genuine factual

issues which can only be resolved by the trier of fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. The nonmoving party may

not rely on the pleadings but must present specific facts creating a genuine issue of material fact. T.W. Elec.

Serv. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). The court's function, however,

is not to make credibility determinations. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The inferences to be drawn from the

facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d

at 631.

A courtmaygrant a summary judgment motion in a patent infringement case, as in any other case. Avia

Group Int'l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal., Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In the context of a patent

infringement case, the defendant may be granted summary judgment for non-infringement where the patentholder's proofis deficient in meeting an essential part of the legalstandard forinfringement. ASQTechnology,

Inc. v. Fortrend Engineering Corp., 1995 WL 590360, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 1995). But "in considering the

[summary judgment] motion, the court must view the evidence in the most favorable light to the non-movant

and draw allreasonable inferencesinthe non-movingparty'sfavor." Tillotson, Ltd. v. Walbo Corp., 831 F.2d

1033, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "[A] literal infringement issue is properly decided upon summary judgment when

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 5 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

no genuine issue of material fact exists, in particular, when no reasonable jury could find that every limitation

recited in the properly construed claim either is or is notfound in the accused device. Bai v. L&L Wings, Inc.,

160 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citingCole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 532 (Fed. Cir.

1996). 

B. Legal Standard of Infringement

1. Literal Infringement

A literal infringement analysis requires two separate steps. Lacks Industries, Inc. v. McKechnie

Vehicle Components USA, Inc., 322 F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Southwall Technologies, Inc. v.

Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir.1995). First, the asserted claims must be interpreted by the

court as a matter oflaw to determine their meaning and scope. Markman v. Westview InstrumentsInc., 517

U.S. 370, 372-74 (1996); Lacks, 322 F.3d at 1341. In the second step, the trier of fact determines whether

the claims as thus construed read on the accused product. Lacks, 322 F.3d at 1341. To establish literal

infringement, every limitation set forth in a claim must be found in an accused product, exactly. Becton

Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 796 (Fed.Cir. 1990). 

2. Doctrine of Equivalents

To prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, plaintiff need only prove that defendant's

design performs: (1) substantially the same functions as plaintiff's design; (2) in substantially the same way; (3)

to obtain the same result. Graver Tank Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608 (1950);

Johnston, 885 F.2d at 1581. Thus, the doctrine of equivalents only applies if the differences between the

claimed and accused products are insubstantial. ASQ Technology, 1995 WL 590360, at *3. Infringement,

both literal and under the doctrine of equivalents, is an issue offact. SSIH Equip. S.A. v. United States Int'l

Trade Comm'n, 718 F.2d 365, 376 (Fed.Cir.1983).

ANALYSIS

A. Claim 1 of the '131 Patent

The first issue in Fresenius' and Baxter's cross-motions for summary judgment is whether the

2008K infringes upon Claim 1 of Baxter's '131 patent. Claim 1 of the '131 patent provides as follows:

1. A hemiodialysis apparatus, comprising:

(a) a dialysate-delivery system for supplying dialysate to a hemodialyzer, the

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 6 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

dialysate-delivery system comprising at least one unit selected from the group

consisting of (i) a dialysate-preparation unit, (ii) a dialysate-circulation unit, (iii) an

ultrafiltrate-removal unit, and (iv) a dialysate-monitoring unit; and

(b) a user/machine interface operably connected to the dialysate-delivery system,

the user/machine interface comprising a touch screen that displays information

corresponding to a setting of a parameter pertinent to operation of the

hemodialysis apparatus, the touch screen being operable to display an indicium

permitting the user to perform, using the touch screen, at least one step of a

procedure for changing the setting of the parameter, and to display a timevariable profile of the operational parameter, the profile being representable

as a plot of coordinates, the plot being with respect to an ordinate of values

of the operational parameter and a time-based abscissa. 

(131.1 (emphasis added).)

As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that Fresenius does not dispute that the 2008K has a

"dialysate-delivery system" as claimed in element (a). Indeed, the 2008K has a concentrate pump, supply

pump, ultrafiltration pump, microprocessor and conductivity cell that allow the machine to prepare, circulate,

and monitor dialysate and to remove fluid from the patient. (See Kelly Decl. at DX2 (2008K Tech. Manual

at III-2, III-11.) Fresenius also does not dispute that the user/machine interface on the 2008K machine is

operably connected to the dialysate-delivery systemor that it includes a touch screen that displays information

corresponding to a setting of a parameter as claimed in element (b). In fact, Fresenius denotes an entire section

ofthe 2008K interface as the "Dialysate Controlsection" and explainsthatit "contains the keys required to start

and stop the flow ofdialysate, the Sodium Variation System, and ultrafiltration." (Kelly Decl. at DX1 (2008K

Op. Manualat 27).) Further, Fresenius does not dispute that the touch screen on the 2008K machine displays

an indicium used to perform at least one step of a procedure for changing the setting of a parameter. In fact,

to set the ultrafiltrationprofile, a nurse uses (1) a "UF Profile" button; (2) a "UF Time" button; (3) a "UF Goal"

button; and (4) one of nine "profile" buttons. (Kelly Decl. at DX1 (Op. Manual at 62-63).) Fresenius does

dispute, however, whether the 2008K literally infringes on the italicized portion of paragraph (b) above,

referred to herein as the Display Element. 

The DisplayElement containstwo requirements:(1)that the touch screen be operable to display a timevariable set of data of the operational parameter mentioned earlier in the claim, and (2) that this set ofdata be

"representable as a plot of coordinates, the plot being with respect to an ordinate of values of the operational

parameter and a time-based abscissa." (131.1(b).) Baxter accuses four display screens on the Fresenius

2008K of meeting the Display Element: (1)the UF screen; (2) the SVS screen; (3) the Kt/V screen, and (4)

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 7 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3The parties have construed "plot of coordinates" as "a graphicaldepiction ofthe relationship between

coordinates" "constructed using a Y-axis representing the values of the operational parameter and an X-axis

representing time." (Abernathy Decl. at DX18 (Supp. Jt. Claim Const. Stmt. at Ex. E).) 

8

the Blood Pressure screen. (Silbert Reply Decl. at Ex. A at 21:6-16). Fresenius argues that the touch screen

of the 2008K does not meet the DisplayElement because it does not display data "representable as a plot of

coordinates." Specifically, Fresenius argues that the 2008K displays "mere icons,"which do not change and

which do not disclose the parameter values at particular times. 

1. The UF Profile Screen

With respect to the UF Profile screen, the Courtfindsthat the 2008K literally infringes upon the Display

Element. As Fresenius' own witness, Dr. Richard Ward, concedes, the UF Profile screen contains nine icons

that "depict in general terms . . . the pattern as to how the UF Rate will vary during the course of treatment."

(Supp. Abernathy Decl. at DX23 (Ward Depo. at 55).) It is beyond dispute that these icons are, in fact, bar

graphs. (Id. (Ward Depo. at 65) (agreeing that the "icons graphically represent the prescribed manner in

which ultrafiltrationis to be carried out.")(emphasis added).) It is also beyond dispute that these icons, or bar

graphs, "tell[] the machine how to vary the UF Rate, [and] what pattern . . . has been selected." (Id. (Ward

Depo. at 64).) Accordingly, it is beyond dispute that the UF Profile screen displays a graphical depiction of

the relationship between ultrafiltration(e.g. the ordinate of values of the operational parameter) and time (e.g.

the time-based abscissa). 

Fresenius' argument that the 2008K does not infringe merely because the graphs do not display the

numbers relating to the specific coordinates for each axis is unavailing. Neither the claim, nor the parties' joint

constructions for the terms in the claim, require the numbers to be displayed.3 All that is required is that the

graph have one axis representing the value ofthe parameter (e.g. the individualultrafiltrationrate) and one axis

representing time. While Fresenius is correct that the graph must also represent a "plot of coordinates" with

actualvalues, Baxter has sufficiently shown that the UF Profile screen meets this standard. For example, Mr.

Crnkovich has testified that each UF "program" has twelve "factors" that "tell the computer, through an

algorithm, relatively how far above or below the average ofthose 12 factors the machine should operate during

each time segment." (Crnkovich Decl. at ¶ 11.) The algorithm is precisely what is being depicted in the graph.

For example, as Mr. Crnkovich explains in his Declaration: 

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 8 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

In fact, the footnote states in its entirety: "Fresenius, however, has provided only cursory evidence to

support its assertion the Kt/V and other screens cited in Baxter's Final Infringement Contentions do not

constitute time-varying parameter. This is hardly the type of dispositive evidence required to find summary

judgment of non-infringement." Baxter Opp. at 11 n.10. 

9

The 2008K's UF programs vary the UF rate according to computer instructions that

cause the machine to operate above or below the average UF rate during certain

periods of time and thus vary the rate at which water is removed over the course of

the treatment. In the example above in paragraph 7, in UF program # 4, the machine

will operate initially at slightly below the average UF rate, spike up above it in the

next time segment, drop back down, spike up again but not quite as far, and then

gradually level off.

(See Crnkovich Decl. at ¶ 8.) Again, the fluctuations that Mr. Crnkovich describes (i.e. slightly below the

average rate at time intervalone, a spike up at time interval two, a drop at time interval three, a slightly smaller

spike at time interval four, and a gradualleveling off at time intervalfive) is exactly what the bar graph depicts.

Further, Mr. Crnkovich's description of how the machine uses the algorithm to calculate the ultrafiltration rate

clearly demonstrates that the bar graph corresponds to actual values. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 13) (describing how the

machine uses an algorithm associated with program # 4 to calculate an actual UF rate of 700 ml/hr for time

segment 1). 

Last, Fresenius' argument that the UF Profile screen does not infringe because the 2008K does not

"know" what the UF Rate for the time segment is until it resorts to the "look-up" table at that particular time

segment actually undermines Fresenius' position. This is due to the fact that, as described above, there is a

direct correlation between the graph that is depicted on the screen and the algorithm set forth in the look-up

table. Accordingly, the Court concludes that, with respect to the UF Profile screen, the 2008K infringes on

Claim 1 of the '131 Patent. 

2. The SVS, Kt/V, and Blood Pressure Screens 

With respect to the SVS, Kt/V, and Blood Pressure screens, however, Freseniusis correct thatBaxter

has not met its burden of proof on the issue of literal infringement. In fact, Baxter's motion for summary

judgment is devoid of any meaningfulargument regarding these screens, and its opposition to Fresenius' crossmotion consists of a single footnote that is not supported by any legal authorities or citations to the factual

record.4 "Since the ultimate burden of proving infringement rests with the patentee, an accused infringer seeking

summary judgment ofnoninfringement maymeet itsinitialresponsibility either by providing evidence thatwould

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 9 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

preclude a finding of infringement, or by showing that the evidence on file fails to establish a material issue of

fact essentialto the patentee's case." Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 271 F.3d 1043, 1046 (Fed.

Cir. 2001); see also J & M Corp. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 269 F.3d 1360, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

("Where a party 'fails to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essentialto that party's case, and on

which that party will bear the burden ofproofat trial,'summary judgment must be entered against that party.").

Accordingly, for the SVS, Kt/V, and Blood Pressure screens, Fresenius has shown that it is entitled to

judgment in its favor on the issue of non-infringement. 

Further, with respect to the Kt/V and Blood Pressure screens, it appears that the screens cannotmeet

the Display Element because they do not, by nature, display a time-variable profile of the operational

parameter. As Fresenius points out, and Baxter does not refute, blood pressure is a measurement of patient

characteristics and is not a time-varying parameter. Similarly, Kt/V is a measurement that reflects the efficiency

of the dialysis treatment and does not vary over the course of the treatment. As such, neither the Kt/V or

Blood Pressure screens contain a "time-based abscissa" and therefore cannot literally infringe on Claim 1 of

Patent '131. 

B. Claim 26 of the '434 Patent

The second issue raised in the cross-motions for summary judgment is whether the Fresenius 2008K

infringes upon Claim 26 of Baxter's '434 Patent. Claim 26 of the '434 Patent calls for:

A hemodialysis machine comprising:

(a) means for controlling the dialysate parameter selected from a group consisting of

dialysate temperature and dialysate concentration, and means for delivering the

dialysate to a dialysate compartment of a hemodialyzer; and

(b) a user/machine interface operably coupled to said dialysate-delivery means, the

user/machine interface comprising a touch screen adapted to display an indicium

corresponding to a parameter pertinent to operation ofthe hemodialysis machine for

performing hemodialysis and to permit the user, by touching the indicium, to

cause a change in the parameter. 

434.26 (emphasis added). 

Baxter contends that there is no dispute thatthe 2008K meets each element in Claim 26(a) ofthe '434

Patent. The limitations ofClaim 26(a) are:(1) a "means for controlling . . . dialysate temperature and dialysate

concentration"; and (2) a "means for delivering the dialysate to a dialysate compartment of a hemodialyzer."

With respect to the former, the parties agree that the corresponding structures are: a microprocessor and a

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 10 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

concentrate pump. (Abernathy Decl. at DX18 (Supp. Jt. Claim Const. Stmt. at Ex. A. at 2).) The 2008K has

both a microprocessor and a concentrate pump. (Kelly Decl. at DX2 (2008K Tech. Manual at III-2).) With

respect to the latter, the parties agree that the corresponding structure is a supply pump. The 2008K has such

a pump. (Kelly Decl. at DX2 (2008K Tech. Manual at III-2).) 

The parties' dispute focuses, instead, on the italicized portion ofparagraph (b). This element requires

a user/machine interface that includes "a touch screen adapted to display an indicium corresponding to a

parameter pertinent to the operation ofthe hemodialysis machine for performing hemodialysis and to permit the

user, by touching the indicium, to cause a change in the parameter." (See 434.26(b).) Fresenius argues that

the 2008K does not meet this last requirement of paragraph (b) because a user does not actually use the

machine's touch screen to change the parameter. Instead, the change is effected by pressing buttons on a

keypad located below the touch screen. Baxter, on the other hand, argues that 2008K does literally infringe,

because, regardless of whether a keypad is also used, the user must first touch the touch screen before

effecting a change in the parameter.

At the Markman hearing, both parties agreed that the word "cause" in Claim 26 of the '434 Patent

could be replaced with the phrase "to effect." See November 22, 2004 Order. As a result, the Court

construed the word "cause" to mean "to effect." Id. Accordingly, the critical language of the claim requires "a

touch screen adapted . . . to permit the user, by touching the indicium, to effect a change in the parameter."

'434.26 (emphasis added). Considering the language ofthe claim, as construed by the Court, the Court finds

that the 2008K literally infringes on Claim 26 of the '434 Patent. 

The fact that the 2008K uses a keypad in addition to the touch screen is not enough to evade liability

forliteralinfringement. See Vulcan Eng. Co., Inc. v. FataAluminium, Inc., 278 F.3d 1366, 1375-76 (Fed.

Cir. 2002) ("when all of the claimed features are present in the accused system, the use ofadditionalfeatures

does not avoid infringement."); see also A.B. Dick Co. v. Burroughs Corp., 713 F.2d 700, 703 (Fed. Cir.

1983) ("It is fundamentalthat one cannot avoid infringement merely by adding elements if each element recited

in the claims is found in the accused device."). Further, while Fresenius argues that the 2008K does not

infringe because "a user could touch any of the accused indicia on the touch screen of the Fresenius 2008K all

day long but could never 'effect a change' in the hemodialysis parameter," the converse ofthis statement is also

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 11 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5As Baxter does not provide any opposition to Fresenius' cross-motion forsummary judgment on this

issue, the Court concludes that the issue has been conceded. 

12

true. Indeed, the user could punch keys on the keypad all day long, but will never effect a change in the

hemodialysis parameter until he first touches the touch screen. Even Fresenius' own witness admits to this.

(See Supp. Abernathy Decl. at DX24 (Crnkovich Depo. at 74-75).) 

Additionally, Fresenius' argument is undermined by its own description of the 2008K set forth in the

2008K Operator's Manual. (Kelly Decl. at DX1 (Operator's Manual at 49).) The Operator's Manual states

quite clearly: "To change a treatment parameter in any screen, select the parameter to change by pressing the

corresponding button on the touch screen." (Id.) Significantly, although Fresenius triesto obfuscate the issue

by arguing that the Operator's Manual is a mere piece of "marketing" material that may not be used to prove

infringement, Fresenius does not argue – because it cannot – that the Operator's Manual does not accurately

describe the way the machine actually works. Last, Fresenius' reading ofthe patent is decidedly strained, as

it ignores key limitations ofClaim 26. Specifically, Fresenius ignores the fact that Claim 26 includes the phrase

"to permit" and the fact that the "indicium" must "correspond[] to a parameter." These phrases, however, are

essential to the claim and cannot be ignored. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is clear that the claim calls for

a touch screen that displays an indicium, and whichpermitsthe user to effect a change in the parameter to which

the indicium corresponds. Thus, because the 2008K has a touch screen that permits the user to effect a change

in the parameter by first touching the screen, the 2008K infringes on Claim 26 of the '434 Patent. 

C. Doctrine of Equivalents

As a final matter, the Court also finds that Fresenius is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of

whether the 2008K infringes Claim 1 of the '131 Patent through the doctrine of equivalents. First, Baxter has

not included this theory of infringement as part of its Final Infringement Contentions. Second, as Fresenius

argues, and as Baxter concedes,5 Baxter is estopped from asserting the doctrine of equivalents because the

Display Element wassurrendered during the patent prosecution process. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku

Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 734 (2002) ("Festo I"); Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinsoku Kogyo

Kabushiki Co., 344 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Festo II"). The doctrine of prosecution history

prevents a patentee from using equivalents to recapture subject matter relinquished during prosecution. Id.

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 12 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

Baxter has not produced any evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of surrender. Accordingly, the

Court grants Fresenius' motion for summary judgment with respect to the issue of non-infringement of Claim

1 of the '131 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents.

 CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Baxter's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Infringement

[Docket No. 273] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and Fresenius' Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment on Non-Infringement [Docket No. 333] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of BAXTER on the

issue of literal infringement of Claim 1 of the '131 Patent with respect to the UF Profile Screen. However,

summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of FRESENIUS on the issue ofnon-infringement ofClaim 1 of the

'131 Patent with respect to the SVS, Kt/V, and Blood Pressure screens. Summary judgment is also

GRANTED in favor of FRESENIUS on the issue ofnon-infringement ofClaim 1 of the '131 Patent under the

doctrine of equivalents. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of BAXTER on the

issue of literal infringement of Claim 26 of the '434 Patent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: 9-2-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 370 Filed 09/06/05 Page 13 of 13