Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00597/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00597-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., and David

Golfarb, M.D.,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-0597-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion Under Rule 50(b) Seeking

Entry of Judgment that Goldfarb Patent Claims 20-27 are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for

Obviousness. (Dkt.#848). After reviewing the pleading and holding oral argument, the Court

issues the following Order.

I. Whether Defendant’s Should be Permitted to Raise an Argument That Was Not

Presented To The Jury And The Appropriate Standard of Review

On July 29, 2008, this Court addressed Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter

of Law that claim 20 was obvious in light of the publication by Dr, Volder, among others,

titled “A-V Shunts Created in New Ways.” (Dkt.#834.) In this Order, the Court determined

that the invalidity defense of obviousness was an issue of law for the Court to determine at

the post-trial stage—specifically through the procedural mechanism of a Renewed Motion

for Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL). See Id. at 7; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 938 Filed 03/31/09 Page 1 of 10
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

- 2 -

Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir.

2008); Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Court further noted

that obviousness would be submitted to the jury, but that the jury’s verdict with respect to

this issue would be treated only as “advisory” by the Court. (Dkt.#834 at 2.) Lastly, the

Court held that “any renewed JMOL motion Gore chooses to file as to obviousness shall not

be limited to claim 20 and the Volder article.” Id. at 7. Given the Court’s July 2008 Order,

there are two issues that must be addressed before the Court can make an ultimate ruling. 

First, Plaintiffs argue that Gore has improperly raised an issue in their JMOL relating

to obviousness that was not first presented to the jury. The issue in question is whether the

Goldfarb patent is obvious based on the Matsumoto article alone. Plaintiffs contend that,

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, the Court cannot review an issue that was not first presented to the

jury. On the other hand, Defendant contends that because obviousness is a question of law,

the Court cannot limit itself to what was presented to the jury; additionally, the question of

obviousness based on the Matsumoto article alone was preserved for later determination

when Mr. Maledon, Defendant’s trial counsel, noted at closing argument that Goldfarb’s

patent was “obvious and anticipated by” the Matsumoto and Volder publications. (12/6/07

Tr. 3614-16). The Court recognizes that there has been some dispute among the Parties

regarding the proper procedure for determining obviousness. The Court also notes that while

the July 2008 Order permitted Defendant to raise issues beyond the narrow focus of their

JMOL, the Court did not specifically address whether Defendant would be permitted to raise

questions of obviousness that were not presented to the jury at all. Irrespective of whether

the July 2008 Order contemplated Defendant’s novel argument regarding the Matsumoto

article, the Court will in an abundance of caution rule on this issue. The Court will not, as

Plaintiffs argue, deem the issue as waived.

Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not briefed the question of obviousness

under the appropriate standard of review. Defendants contend that under KSR, the Court

must perform a de novo review and make a determination as a matter of law, regardless of

the jury’s findings. KSR Int’l, 127 S.Ct. At 1734. Plaintiffs contend that, although the legal

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 938 Filed 03/31/09 Page 2 of 10
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 -

conclusion is reviewed de novo, the jury’s explicit and implicit factual findings are owed

“due deference” and are reviewed to determine if they are supported by “substantial

evidence.” See Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodsteam, Corp., 514 F. Supp. 2d 714, 720-21 (E.D. Pa.

2007). The Court acknowledges that the jury’s determination on obviousness is owed

deference. In ruling on Defendant’s Obviousness JMOL, the Court held that the jury’s

verdict would be taken under advisement while the Court conducting its own de novo

determination. However, the Court cannot agree that all that is left for it to do is review the

record and determine whether the jury’s obviousness determination is supported by

“substantial evidence.” Such an inquiry would eviscerate the independent nature of the

Court’s obviousness determination and would run the risk of confusing the unique review

that is to be conducted here with the type of deferential review performed by a trial court

under a traditional RJMOL. See Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co., 727 F.2d 1506,

1515 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (noting that the trial court is the “ultimate arbiter” on the question of

obviousness). Therefore, even if the Court were to assume, arguendo, that Gore did not

properly present their argument that Goldfarb’s patent was obvious in light of the Matsumoto

article standing alone, the Court would still review such a claim. The Court will therefore

review the issue of obviousness de novo, and make the determination as a matter of law. 

II. Merits and Analysis of Defendant’s Obviousness Argument 

A party seeking to establish that patent claims are invalid must overcome statutory

presumption of validity set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 282 by clear and convincing evidence.

Nystrom v. TREX, Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This presumption of

validity exists at every stage of the litigation. Cannon Computer Sys., Inc. v. Nu-Kote Int’l,

Inc., 134 F.3d 1985, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and “is never annihilated, destroyed or even

weakened regardless of what facts are of record.” ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp.,

732 F.2d 1472, 1574-75 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

A patent claim is invalid if the invention recited in the claim would have been obvious

to a person of ordinary skill in the filed of the invention at the time it was made. Model

Patent Jury Instruction for the Northern District of California § 4.3b. The ordinary skilled

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 938 Filed 03/31/09 Page 3 of 10
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

To the extent Gore classifies the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR as lowering their

burden or proof or requiring the Court to use a less stringent standard in “overcoming the

presumption of validity,” that argument is hereby rejected. The Court instructed the jury on

the applicable law without Gore’s objection—on December 4, 2007, Gore endorsed the

Court’s instruction, including the standard under Am. Hoist, as “absolutely correct.”

(12/04/07 Tr. At 3129-30.) Incidentally, the Supreme Court decided KSR on April 30, 2007,

months before the instructions were finalized. The instant motion is neither the appropriate

time nor place to raise a belated objection to a jury instruction that was never thought to be

in contention. In any event, the Court’s unobjected instruction on obviousness was legally

accurate, as it was based on Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), which the Supreme

Court in KSR noted, “continues to define the inquiry that controls.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. At 1734.

- 4 -

person is a person of average education and training in the field of the invention and is

presumed to be aware of all of the relevant prior art. Id.

In addition, under Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350

(Fed. Cir. 1984), where the matter alleged to be invalidating was expressly considered by the

PTO, the party challenging validity has the “added burden . . . of overcoming the deference

that is due to a qualified government agency presumed to have properly done its job, which

includes one or more examiners who are assumed to have some expertise in interpreting the

references and to be familiar with their work with the level of skill in the art and whose duty

it is to issue only valid patents.” Id. at 1359.1

Under KSR, the Court first looks to the primary factors: the scope and content of the

prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the level of

ordinary skill in the pertinent art. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734; (Dkt.#769 at 35.) The Court also

may consider the following secondary factors: (1) the commercial success of a product due

to the merits of the claimed invention; (2) a long felt need for the solution provided by the

claimed invention; (3) unsuccessful attempts by others to find the solution provided by the

claimed invention; (4) copying of the claimed invention by others; (5) unexpected and

superior results from the claimed invention; (6) acceptance by others of the claimed invention

as shown by praise from others in the field or from the licensing of the claimed invention;

(7) other evidence tending to show nonobviousness; (8) independent invention of the claimed

invention by others before or at about the same time as the named inventor thought of it; and

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 938 Filed 03/31/09 Page 4 of 10
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

2

The Court is unmoved by Defendant’s argument that there was “no dispute” as to the

scope and content of the prior art. While both the Volder and Matusmoto articles are indeed

prior art to the Goldfarb patent, the scope and content of these two articles was heavily

debated throughout trial, and even in the briefing submitted by the Parties on the instant

motion.

- 5 -

(9) other evidence tending to show obviousness. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734; (citing Graham v.

John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)); (Dkt#769 at 35.) 

The Court will now review the record in light of the relevant primary and secondary

factors. Before doing so, the Court must first explain its organizational structure. With

respect to the scope and content of the prior art2

 and the differences between the prior art and

the claims at issue, these factors are discussed within the context of each of the three

individual arguments raised by Defendants. With respect to the proper level of skill, that

factor can be disposed of rather quickly. Defendant argues that the level of ordinary skill in

the art as of Dr. Goldfarb’s filing date would have been a surgeon with vascular surgery

experience, and that the issue was undisputed among the Parties experts. (Wheeler 11/28/07

Tr. 2138:14-16; Anderson 12/04/07 Tr. 3077:25-3078:12). Plaintiffs disagree, noting that one

need only look to the jury instructions and the different contentions each side advanced as

to the qualifications of one of ordinary skill. Turning to the jury instruction, the Parties did

indeed proffer different instructions, both of which were submitted to the jury on the issue

of the level of ordinary skill. Gore asked the jury to determine that the level of ordinary skill

was “a person involved in and familiar with the design, development, and use of vascular

grafts.” (Dkt.# 769 at p. 59.) This is not the same definition that Gore now claims was

undisputed among the experts at trial. If the level of skill was indeed undisputed at trial, it

is unclear why Gore requested a jury instruction that significantly deviated from the

unquestioned opinion of both Parties experts. In any event, the Court will review the

question of obviousness under the both definitions that Gore has submitted. The Court finds

that Gore’s argument fails under either standard. 

/ / / 

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 938 Filed 03/31/09 Page 5 of 10
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

After interference was resolved, the PTO once again considered and rejected the

Volder article in ex parte prosecution. (PX115.1599) “When an attacker simply goes over

the same ground traveled by the PTO, part of the burden is to show that the PTO was wrong

in its decision to grant the patent.” Am. Hoist, 725 F.2d at 1360.

- 6 -

A. Obviousness of Claims 20-24 and 27 in Light of the Volder Article

The evidence presented at trial supports the legal conclusion that Claims 20-24 and

27 of the Goldfarb patent would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill based

on the Volder article. First, the significance of the Volder article was repeatedly considered

by the PTO before, during and after Gore’s interference. See Am. Hoist , 725 F.2d at 1359

(noting the burden that arises when the PTO has considered the same contention). In fact,

Gore repeatedly distinguished the Volder article from Dr. Goldfarb’s invention in the PTO:

" March 24, 1975: Gore disclosed the Volder article to the PTO, stating that it

does not disclose a devise for “replacing body parts by expanded porous PTFE

having fibrils exceeding a critical minimum of 5 microns in length.”

(PX117.90)

" February 26, 1976: Gore submitted a declaration to the PTO stating that the

“term ‘pore size’ [as used in the Volder article] is meaningless without futher

qualification.” (PX117.155)

" June 24, 1977: Gore stated to the PTO that the Volder article was “irrelevant

to the subject invention.” (PX117.2114)

Besides Gore’s own admissions before the PTO,3

 in Dr. Volder’s unrebutted affidavit,

he stated under oath that “he is of the unqualified opinion that the prosthetic vascular

structure conceived and developed by [Dr. Goldfarb], . . . was by no means obvious to those

actively conducting research on expanded PTFE vascular structures during 1972 and 1973.”

(PX115.310). 

Evidence was also presented at trial that researchers were unable to invent a

successful graft even after the Volder and Matsumoto articles were published. For example,

Gore’s discredited inventor, Peter Cooper, testified in 1975 that despite ready access to Dr.

Volder, his work and article, Cooper was compelled to steal Dr. Goldfarb’s histology slides

to determine why “other research centers . . . had not been successful.”(11/07/07 Tr. 424-425;

11/08/07 Tr. at 643, 691-692). 

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 938 Filed 03/31/09 Page 6 of 10
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 -

In addition, the actual inventor of devise at issue, Dr. Goldfarb, testified at trial that

neither Volder nor Matsumoto articles taught his invention. (11/07/07 Tr. at 499). Plaintiff’s

expert Dr. Anderson testified that he would have been unable to create a working graft in

1973 based on the Volder and Matsumoto articles because “[he]’d have to do a lot of

experimentation. . . . [T]here wasn’t enough in either of those articles to point me and reduce

the time and money factor to create something in a reasonable amount of time.” (12/04/07

Tr. At 3066).

Lastly, with respect to the skill of one in the art at the time of invention, the Court

must reject—just as the jury did— Gore’s flawed contention that “pore size” and “internodal

distance” were synonymous. Record evidence, such as that reproduced below, directly

contradicts such a finding:

" Gore’s statement to the PTO that the Volder article does not disclose a devise

“having fibrils exceeding a critical minimum of 5 microns in length.”

(PX117.90)

" Gore’s declaration, that “pore size does not predict fibril length.”

(PX116.3890)

" Dr. Campbell’s declaration, in which he declared that the “term ‘pore size’ is

meaningless without further qualification.” (PX117.155)

" The Federal Circuit’s adoption of the Parties agreement that “pore size bears

no relationship to fibril length.” (PX116.7637)

" Gore’s founder’s declaration that “‘pore size’ is not synonymous with ‘fibril

length” in the Volder article. (PX117.2134)

" Dr. Volder’s own statements, which this Court has previously recognized in

its July 2008 Order as evidence that the Volder article does not render the

Goldfarb patent as obvious.

When viewing the record evidence in light of the relevant KSR factors, the Court can

only conclude that the Volder article did not render the Goldfarb patent obvious to one

skilled in the art.

B. Obviousness of Claims 25 and 26 in Light of the Combination of the

Mutsumoto and Volder Article

Turning to the next issue, Gore’s contention that Claims 20-27 of the Goldfarb patent

are obvious in light of the Matsumoto and Volder publications is likewise without merit.

Like the Volder article, the Matsumoto article was also repeatedly considered by the PTO

during the pendancy of the Goldfarb application.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 938 Filed 03/31/09 Page 7 of 10
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

- 8 -

" October 24, 1974: Dr. Goldfarb notes in his patent application that “[ePTFE]

has been used . . . without clinically meaningful or reproducible success,”

citing the Matsumoto article. (PX1, col.4)

" April 21, 1975: Dr. Goldfarb submits the Matsumoto article stating that “none

of the above-cited references [including Matsumoto] anticipate or otherwise

render obvious the combination covered by the claims.” (PX115.57)

" February 26, 1976: Gore states in a declaration that “[e]fforts in this country

to duplicate the results of Matsumoto have met with failure . . .” (PX117.155)

" October 29, 1984: Gore argues that “the uncontroverted fact is that Matsumoto

I did not teach anyone how to make an expanded PTFE graft that would enable

tissue ingrowth,” and that “[o]ne is left to speculate as to whether this small

portion of the Matsumoto graft is representative of the fibril length throughout

the entire graft . . ..” (PX116.3828-29)

In addition, other doctors, including those working for Gore, were unable to crack the

problem with graft development after the publication of both the Volder and Matsumoto

articles were published. In 1975, Peter Cooper, Gores discredited “inventor,” testified that

despite the fact that Gore had access to Dr. Volder and his research, and despite the fact that

Gore manufactured the tubing used by Matsumoto, it could not figure out why researchers—

other than Dr. Goldfarb—were failing. (DX 3009; PX116.15122-23; 11/07/07 Tr. at 424-25;

11/08/07 Tr. at 643, 691-692.)

The record also demonstrates that other researchers could not determine the structure

disclosed in the Matsumoto article or use the article to create a working vascular graft:

" October 22, 1973: Gore reported that the “Japanese paper [the Matsumoto

article] claims 100% success on femoral arteries in dogs: but we do not know

what tubes were used. So we start again.” (DX3205 at WLG5005927.)

" December 7, 1973: Dr. Kelly, one of the other researchers working with Gore,

wrote to Dr. Matsumoto noting that “[u]sing what is presumably identical

material, . . . all of the grafts have occluded within 4 weeks . . .. It is difficult

to resolve the apparent conflict in your results.” (PX116.13174.)

" July 16, 1975: Gore employee Richard Mendenhall testified regarding the

Matsumoto article that “nobody knew what was sent over; therefore, if you

didn’t know what was sent, you would have a very hard time duplicating it

from a manufacturing point of view . . .. Nobody was very able to reproduce

that.” (Mendenhall Tr., 7/19/75 at 129 (PX117.1718).)

Then there is the testimony from trial, which further confirms the nonobviousness of

the Matsumoto article. Dr. Goldfarb testified that the Volder and Matsumoto articles did not

teach his invention. (11/07/07 Tr. at 499.) Even Gore’s paid fact witness, Mr. Detton, whom

the Court noted in a previous Order lacked credibility, confirmed that Gore researchers had

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 938 Filed 03/31/09 Page 8 of 10
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

- 9 -

“no idea” what type of ePTFE vascular graft Matsumoto used. (11/27/07 Tr. at 1959-61.)

The record also reveals substantial proof that the Matsumoto article failed to disclose the key

parameter of internodal distance. This evidence includes Gore’s own damaging admissions:

" “Matsumoto I doesn’t even mention fibrils or fibril length . . . Not only does

Matsumoto I fail as an inherent anticipation, but given its silence as to fibril

length, Matsumoto I does not render the invention unpatentable on any

ground.” (PX 116.3825-26.)

" Those skilled in the art of making vascular prosthetics were not taught by

Matsumoto I how to make successful grafts . . . The fact is that Matsumoto I

includes no mention of fibril length, let alone that fibril length is a relevant

parameter. One looking at Matsumoto I is left to guess at the physical

properties of the grafts responsible for producing success.” (PX116.3827.)

" “Even assuming that Matsumoto I shows a small portion of a graft having

fibrils greater than about 5 microns in length with tissue ingrowth, Matsumoto

I is completely silent as to the structure of the remainder of the graft. One is

left to speculate as to whether this small portion of the Matsumoto graft is

representative of fibril length throughout the entire graft and whether other

portions of the graft had tissue ingrowth.” (PX116.3828-29.)

Thus,. When the record evidence is viewed in light of the relevant KSR factors, the

Court can only conclude that the Volder and Matsumoto articles did not render the Goldfarb

patent obvious to one skilled in the art.

C. Obviousness of Claims 20-27 in View of the Mutsumoto Article Alone

For reasons identical to those recited in the previous section of this Order, the Court

has no basis to find Claims 20-27 of the Goldfarb patent obvious in light of the Matusmoto

article, standing alone.

III. Conclusion

In sum, this issue is not a close call. In the instant motion, Gore has no valid

evidentiary basis for meritoriously arguing that Claims 20 through 27 of the Goldfarb patent

are, by clear and convincing evidence, obvious. In fact, the overwhelming weight of the

evidence presented at trial can only be understood as supporting a finding of

nonobviousness—to argue otherwise is nothing more than an attempt to swim against a great

and unrelenting current. The Court also notes that the jury returned a verdict that found the

Goldfab patent nonobvious in light of the Volder and/or Matsumoto publications. The jury

also resolved every single dispute that was at issue in the case in Plaintiffs’ favor, including

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 938 Filed 03/31/09 Page 9 of 10
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 -

a finding that Gore was a willful infringer. (See Dkt.# 771 at 17.) The Court is mindful of

the critical role played by the jury in this case. 

As such, the Court rules, as a matter of law, that Claims 20 through 27 of the Goldfarb

patent are not obvious in light of the Volder publication, the Matsumoto publication, or any

combination thereof. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion Under Rule 50(b) Seeking

Entry of Judgment that Goldfarb Patent Claims 20-27 are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for

Obviousness. (Dkt.#848.)

DATED this 31st day of March, 2009.

Case 2:03-cv-00597-MHM Document 938 Filed 03/31/09 Page 10 of 10