Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01515/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01515-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SYNVASIVE CORPORATION,

NO. CIV. S-05-1515 WBS DAD

NO. CIV. S-06-0049 WBS DAD

Plaintiff, CONSOLIDATED 

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

STRYKER CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 

STRYKER CORPORATION,

Counterclaimant,

v.

SYNVASIVE CORPORATION,

Counterdefendant.

 ----oo0oo----

Currently before the court are defendant Stryker

Corporation’s motions for summary judgment of noninfringement and

of invalidity of three patents held by plaintiff Synvasive

Corporation, and plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment

of infringement of two specific claims of two of its patents. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 1 of 38
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

This figure is also included in the ‘253 and ‘101 1

patents. 

2

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Synvasive is the assignee of U.S. Patents

6,022,353 (“the ‘353 patent”), 6,503,253 (“the ‘253 patent”), and

6,723,101 (“the ‘101 patent”), all of which relate to surgical

saw blades and related methods of using surgical saw blades, and

are based on a patent application filed with the Patent and

Trademark Office (“PTO”) on May 30, 1991. (Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot.

for Summ. J. of Invalidity 5.) The ‘101 and ‘253 patents are

continuations of the ‘353 patent; thus, although the claims in

the three patents differ, they share a common specification. 

(Id.) The ‘353 patent issued on February 8, 2000; the ‘253

patent issued on January 7, 2003; and the ‘101 patent issued on

April 20, 2004. (05-1515 Compl. ¶¶ 5,7; 06-0049 Compl. ¶ 5.) A

figure from the ‘353 patent is included below; it depicts one

embodiment of the patented blade.1

There are two categories of products manufactured by defendant

that allegedly infringe the ‘253, ‘353, and ‘101 patents: (1)

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 38
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

One model of the Dual-Cut blades, Stryker Part No. 2

4225-147-090, does not have offset teeth.

The court will include within this category Stryker 3

Part Nos. 2108-151S4 and 2108-102S12. There is not a dispute

that these blades were manufactured in a flat-top configuration

until at least April, 2005 and May, 2005 respectively. (Hulse

Decl. Ex. C (Def.’s Responses and Am. Responses to Interrogs.

Nos. 35, 37).) Plaintiff alleges infringement only of the flattop configurations of these blades. (Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 5, 

n.2.) 

3

Stryker’s Dual-Cut blades, with “fishtail-shaped” teeth that are

offset; and (2) Stryker’s Offset teeth blades. 2 3

On March 30, 2006, the court granted defendant’s motion

for summary judgment for all asserted claims of the ‘353 patent

and Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 of the ‘253 patent with respect

to the Stryker Dual-Cut blades. (March 30, 2006 Order.) The

court denied defendant’s motion with respect to the Stryker

Offset blades and Stryker Parts Nos. 2108-102S12 and 2108-151S4. 

(Id.) The court construed the claim terms of the ‘353 and ‘253

patents pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52

F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). 

On May 4, 2006, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to

consolidate Case No. 06-0049 with Case No. 05-1515. (May 4, 2006

Order.) The court ordered that its March 30, 2006, Order,

granting summary judgment in part, would apply to the

consolidated suit, including its previous claim construction. 

(Id. 3-4.) 

In its current motion, plaintiff argues that

defendant’s Dual-Cut blades infringe Claims 1 and 14 of the ‘253

patent and Claims 1-4 and 10 of the ‘101 patent. (March 30, 2006

Order 23; Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. of Noninfringement 3.) 

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 3 of 38
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

Unlike the claims alleged in a complaint, “[t]he claims 4

of the patent provide the concise formal definition of the

invention. They are the numbered paragraphs which ‘particularly

[point] out and distinctly [claim] the subject matter which the

applicant regards as his invention.’” Corning Glass Works v.

Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1989)

(citing 35 U.S.C. § 112). 

Further, the court will address defendant’s summary 5

judgment motion of invalidity of the ‘101 patent only with

respect to Claims 1-4 and 10. 

4

Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s Offset blades infringe Claims

1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 of the ‘353 patent; Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8,

10, 12, and 14-18 of the ‘253 patent; and Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10,

11, 13, 15, and 17 of the ‘101 patent. (March 30, 2006 Order 4

23-24; Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. of Noninfringement 3.) 

However, plaintiff fails to defend against Claims 5, 7, 8, 11,

13, 15, and 17. Therefore, the court will enter summary judgment

in favor of defendant with respect to those claims.5

The court’s March 30, 2006, Order, provided a detailed

description of the asserted claims with respect to the ‘353 and

‘253 patents. (March 30, 2006 Order 3-5.) The ‘101 patent is a

method patent. Claim 1 of the ‘101 patent is a method for

surgical cutting of bone containing the following elements: (1)

contacting the bone with an oscillatory cutter having a blade

with teeth such that, only initially, a multiplicity of different

teeth contact the bone substantially simultaneously, thereby

forming a somewhat linear kerf; and (2) forming the kerf

substantially V-shaped by having each tooth alternatively and

sequentially contacting the kerf. (Gont Noninfringement Decl.

Ex. E (‘101 patent, 7:2-11).) Claim 2 modifies Claim 1 by

requiring “each tooth which next touches the kerf remove bone

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 4 of 38
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

progressively.” (Id. (‘101 patent, 7:12-14).) Claim 3 modifies

Claim 2 by requiring “half of the teeth be away from bone contact

for clearing bone chips while another half is working.” (Id.

(‘101 patent, 7:15-17).) Claim 4 modifies Claim 3 by requiring

“half of the cutting teeth to cool while out of contact from the

bone.” (Id. (‘101 patent, 7:18-19).) 

Claim 10 of the ‘101 patent is a method for surgical

cutting of bone requiring the following elements: (1) “contacting

the bone with a surgical saw blade” having (a) “a proximal end

configured to couple the blade to a surgical bone saw,” and a

distal end having (i) “substantially identical teeth” for cutting

bone, (ii) the teeth ending in tips that are “configured to be

placed substantially on a tangent that is perpendicular to the

radial line extending from the center of the power tool cutting

axis that bisects the arc of travel” of the blade, (iii) such

that the teeth contact the bone “to provide better tracking” when

forming the kerf, (iv) whereupon the “teeth cut progressively and

sequentially as the kerf begins to form,” (v) “to provide faster

aggressive cutting and efficient chip removal;” and (2) “cutting

the bone with the plurality of teeth to form a predetermined cut

in the bone.” (Id. (‘101 patent, 7-8:53-5).) 

In defendant’s first motion for summary judgment, it

argues that the Stryker Dual-Cut and Offset blades do not

infringe any of the asserted claims of the ‘353 patent and the

‘253 patent, and defendant’s blades do not infringe any asserted

claim of the ‘101 patent directly, contributorily, or by

inducement. In its second motion, defendant argues that asserted

claims of the three patents are invalid because they are

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 5 of 38
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

Plaintiff specifically enumerates the following 6

products in its summary judgment motion: Stryker Part Nos. 4225-

070-090, 4225-85-127, 2108-151S4, 2108-102S12, 2108-182-001, and

4113-119-090S1. (Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 1.) Plaintiff refers

to these blades collectively as “Stryker Flat-Top Sagittal

Blades.” (Id.) The Court will analyze this category

collectively as Stryker Offset Blades in order to be consistent

with the court’s previous order. Appropriate exceptions will be

enumerated throughout the order. 

6

indefinite, anticipated by and/or obvious by prior art, and

prohibited under the statutory on-sale bar. Plaintiff filed a

motion for partial summary judgment on December 22, 2006, arguing

that the Stryker Offset blades infringe Claim 1 of the ‘353

patent and Claim 2 of the ‘253 patent.6

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). A material fact is one that could affect the outcome of

the suit, and a genuine issue is one that could permit a

reasonable jury to enter a verdict in the non-moving party’s

favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial

burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material

fact and can satisfy this burden by presenting evidence that

negates an essential element of the non-moving party’s case. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). 

Alternatively, the movant can demonstrate that the non-moving

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 6 of 38
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

party cannot provide evidence to support an essential element

upon which it will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id.

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the

non-moving party must “go beyond the pleadings and by her own

affidavits, or by ‘the depositions, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file,’ [and] designate ‘specific facts showing

that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324 (quoting

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). The non-movant “may not rest upon the

mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Any inferences drawn from the underlying

facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party

opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

The plaintiff movant “must establish beyond

peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or

defense to warrant judgment in his favor.” Fontenot v. Upjohn

Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986) (emphasis in original);

see also Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552, 561 (6th Cir. 2002) (“a

substantially higher hurdle must be surpassed, particularly where

. . . the moving party bears the ultimate burden of persuasion .

. . at trial”).

B. Claim Construction

Generally, courts look to three sources for claim

construction: the claims, the specification, and the prosecution

history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The ordinary meaning of terms

is sometimes elucidated by common-sense interpretation by judges

or use of “general-purpose” dictionaries. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,

415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Brown v. 3M, 265

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 7 of 38
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

F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (construing claims without

“elaborate interpretation”)). Patentees, however, may serve as

their own lexicographers when they clearly define terms in a

manner different from their generally understood meaning. K-2

Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

The court previously construed the meaning of the terms

in the patents. Because the ‘101 patent is a continuation of the

‘253 and the ‘353 patent, and their specifications are almost

identical, the court will interpret shared terms in a consistent

manner. See Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. N. Telecom Ltd., 216 F.3d

1042, 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (affirming noninfringement on summary

judgment when a district court interpreted terms shared by two

patents because “[b]oth patents share[d] the same written

description, and one patent [was] a continuation of the [other]

patent”). Defendant asks the court to define a single additional

claim term that was not addressed in the court’s March 30, 2006,

Order. 

1. Terms Defined in the Court’s Previous Order

The court construed nearly all of the terms parties

assert are relevant to the claims of the patents-in-suit. (March

30, 2006 Order 8-16.) The court’s construction is briefly

reviewed:

A “tooth” is a cutting surface. (Id. 9-10.)

A “tip” refers to “one or more tips at the distal end

of a tooth.” (Id. 10-11.)

“Substantially shaped as right triangles” means “shaped

as a triangle in which one of the interior angles is

approximately ninety degrees.” (Id. 11.)

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 8 of 38
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

“Hypotenuse” means “the edge of a triangular cutting

surface tooth opposite the interior angle of the triangle that is

closest to ninety degrees.” (Id. 12.)

“Each hypotenuse is oriented toward” means “each tooth

should have a hypotenuse that is oriented toward the central long

axis, or facing that axis.” (Id.)

“A line” in the context of the patents-in-suit means “a

single straight line that is the intersection of two planes.” 

(Id. 12-13.) 

“Arrayed on a line” means “positioned on a single

line.” (Id. 13-14.) 

“Configured to be placed substantially on a tangent” is

construed to mean “a blade having a flat-top configuration.” 

(Id. 14.) 

“Each hypotenuse is oriented at least one of towards

and away from the centrally positioned long axis” means “either

all of the individual hypotenuses are oriented towards the

centrally positioned long axis, or all of the individual

hypotenuses are oriented away from the centrally positioned long

axis.” (Id. 14-16.)

2. Construction of Additional Term 

Defendant notes that the term “substantially

identically shaped” was not addressed in the court’s March 30,

2006, Order, and requests the court construe the term. (Def.’s

Mot. for Summ. J. of Noninfringement 11.) Defendant argues that

this term should mean that the teeth are “approximately identical

in characteristics such as size and shape.” (Id. 12.) 

Most of the time, as here, the words or terms which the

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 9 of 38
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

parties ask the court to construe are the best words or terms

that could have been chosen. However, to say that

“substantially” means “substantially” undoubtedly would not pass

appellant scrutiny. The use of the term “substantially” suggests

that the objects in question are “approximately” or “almost”

identically shaped. See Anchor Wall Sys. v. Rockwood Retaining

Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that

“words of approximation, such as ‘generally’ and ‘substantially,’

are descriptive terms commonly used in patent claims to avoid a

strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter” (internal

quotations omitted; citations omitted)). 

Defendant argues that the ordinary meaning of the word

“identical” means “being exactly equal and alike.” (Def.’s Mot.

for Summ. J. of Noninfringement 11-12.) Construing this with the

ordinary meaning of shape, defendant argues that the phrase

requires uniformity of size and shape. (Id. 12.) That

construction would substantially (i.e. just about or almost) read

the word “substantially” out of the description. Even accepting

defendant’s definition of shape--having or fashioned to a

particular form--the court cannot accept defendant’s construction

of this phrase. The definition of shape makes no reference to

size. Instead the court will construe “substantially identically

shaped” to mean “having a particular form that is approximately

exactly alike.” A high degree of similarity in shape, but not

mathematical exactness, is required. Liquid Dynamics Corp. v.

Vaughn Co., Inc., 355 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The term

‘substantial’ is a meaningful modifier implying ‘approximate,’

rather than ‘perfect.’”). 

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 10 of 38
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

C. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of

Noninfringement of the ‘353, ‘253, and ‘101 Patents

Under 35 U.S.C. § 271, “whoever without authority

makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,

within the United States or imports into the United States any

patented invention during the term of the patent therefor,

infringes the patent.” “A determination of patent infringement

consists of two steps: (1) the court must first interpret the

claim, and (2) it must then compare the properly construed claims

to the allegedly infringing device.” Playtex Prods., Inc. v.

Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 905-06 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

(citing Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454

(Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc)); see also Markman v. Westview

Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 374 (1996) (“Victory in an

infringement suit requires a finding that the patent claim

‘covers the alleged infringer’s product or process,’ which in

turn necessitates a determination of ‘what the words in the claim

mean.’”). “To show literal infringement of a patent, a patentee

must supply sufficient evidence to prove that the accused product

or process meets every element or limitation of a claim.” Rohm &

Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

(citations omitted). Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that

each accused product “includes every limitation of [an asserted]

claim or an equivalent of each limitation.” Dolly, Inc. v.

Spalding & Evanflo Cos., 16 F.3d 1533, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

1. Stryker Dual-Cut Blades

a. Literal Infringement

Claims 1 and 14 of the ‘253 patent contain the

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 11 of 38
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

12

following elements: (1) a proximal end having a hub for

attachment to an oscillatory power tool; (2) a distal end having

a plurality of substantially identically shaped cutting teeth

(Claim 1 requires that they be an even number of teeth; Claim 14

does not); and (3) tips that are “configured to be placed

substantially on a tangent which is perpendicular to a radial

line extending from the center of the power tool cutting axis

that bisects the arc of travel within which the blade travels . .

. .” (Gont Noninfringement Decl. Ex. D (‘253 patent, 8:36-42).)

The issue with respect to these claims is whether the

Dual-Cut blades have “substantially identically shaped” cutting

teeth. Defendant argues that literal infringement is precluded

because the “exterior” teeth and the “interior” teeth are

different in shape and are asymmetrical about the valley. In

retrospect, and in light of the arguments presently being made,

the court’s definition of tooth as “a cutting surface” may be

somewhat ambiguous. Regardless of how much of the blade is

considered the “tooth,” however, it is clear from the engineering

specifications and physical inspection of the blade with the aid

of a magnifier, that the exterior teeth differ in shape from the

interior teeth. 

Specifically, the exterior edge of exterior teeth have

straight sides. The edges leading into the valley of the

fishtail of the interior teeth are curved. This is evident

whether the court further defines teeth as encompassing all the

area leading from the trough to the tip, as defendant posits, or

some other line cutting across the tips and containing only a

fractional amount the area encompassed by defendant’s

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 12 of 38
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

construction. Unless the court would reduce the tooth such to

that which is substantially indistinguishable from the tip and

essentially has a microscopic area, no reasonable jury would fail

to conclude that the two outside teeth have straight exterior

edges and the remaining teeth have curved edges leading into the

valley of the fishtail. Therefore, the teeth are not

substantially identically shaped as a matter of law and the DualCut blades do not literally infringe Claims 1 and 14 of the ‘253

patent. 

b. Infringement Under the Doctrine of

Equivalents 

Some products or processes not strictly covered by the 

patent claims may still infringe, if they fall under the

additional scope of protection allowed by the doctrine of

equivalents. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki

Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 733 (2002) (“The doctrine of equivalents

allows the patentee to claim those insubstantial alterations that

were not captured in drafting the original patent claim but which

could be created through trivial changes.”). Insubstantial

differences between an accused product and a patent that preclude

literal infringement may not prevent infringement under the

doctrine of equivalents (DOE). Id. An accused product would

infringe under the DOE if that product passed the function-wayresult test: if, with respect to each claim limitation, it

performed substantially the same function in substantially the

same way to achieve substantially the same result as the patented

product. Dawn Equip. Co. v. Ky. Farms Inc., 140 F.3d 1009, 1016

(Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 13 of 38
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

14

Plaintiff is estopped from asserting that the fishtail

blades are “substantially identically shaped” under the DOE. 

When a party narrows claim scope by amending the claims or making

arguments to the PTO during its efforts to patent the invention,

that party is estopped from recapturing the previously

surrendered claim scope with the doctrine of equivalents. 

Honeywell Intern. Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 370 F.3d

1131, 1139-40 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Plaintiff submitted an amendment

to the application that issued as the ‘253 patent in which claim

1 was amended to include the narrowing “substantially identically

shaped” limitation to the requirement that “said distal end

hav[e] a plurality of cutting teeth.” (Gont Noninfringement Decl.

Ex. I, 11-12.) Moreover, to read “substantially identically

shaped” in such a way that curved-edged and straight-edged would

be functional equivalents would effectively read the

“substantially identically shaped” limitation out of the patent. 

See Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc., 402 F.3d 1188, 1195 (Fed.

Cir. 2005) (“To hold that ‘unmounted’ is equivalent to ‘mounted’

would effectively read the ‘mounted on’ limitation out of the

patent.”). The court will grant defendant’s motion for summary

judgement with respect to the Dual Cut blades for Claims 1 and 14

of the ‘253 patent. 

2. Stryker Offset Blades

Defendant argues that the Stryker Offset blades do not

literally infringe any of the asserted claims of the ‘353 patent

and the ‘253 patent. Because the offset blades are curved to the

sides, defendant argues that the following claim limitations are

not met: “substantially identically shaped,” “shaped

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 14 of 38
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

These two requirements are specifically enumerated in 7

Claim 1 of the ‘353 patent, which is the only independent claim

of that patent. Claim 1 of the ‘353 patent also requires that

15

substantially as right triangles,” and “each hypotenuse is

oriented at least one of towards or away from the centrally

positioned long axis.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. on

Noninfringement 17-18.) The court previously declined to grant

defendant’s summary judgment motion with respect to the offset

blades because although the blades may not be directly centered

on a line, the blades are “substantially” positioned on a line or

tangent. (March 30, 2006 Order 21.) 

Defendant’s arguments are similar to those the court

has already rejected. Defendant argues the teeth cannot be

“substantially identically shaped” because the offset teeth are

bent to the sides. According to the engineering specifications

of Stryker Part No. 4225-85-127, the offset range is between

.0005 and .0520 inches. (Dornfeld Noninfringement Decl. Ex. K.) 

Those specifications fail to indicate any curvature. They may be

very slightly curved, but visual inspection of blades with the

aid of a magnifier further persuades this court that no

reasonable jury could conclude that the Offset blades and

plaintiff’s blades are not “substantially identically shaped.” 

As to Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 15-18 of the ‘253

patent and all asserted claims of the ‘353 patent, defendant also

argues that the offset blades do not have teeth that are “shaped

substantially as right triangles” such that “each hypotenuse is

oriented at least one of towards or away from the centrally

positioned long axis.” Defendant argues that any triangular 7

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 15 of 38
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

the teeth be “substantially identically shaped.” For reasons

previously discussed, the court concludes as a matter of law that

the teeth are “substantially identically shaped.” 

Because the court declines to grant defendant’s motion 8

on the grounds that literal infringement is precluded, the court

does not need to consider whether the doctrine of equivalents

16

shape formed by the tooth cannot be a triangle because a triangle

is a three-sided geometric construction in a single plane. 

Defendant’s construction would vitiate the modifier

substantially, and thus the court concludes that the teeth are

shaped substantially as right triangles. 

The court discussed the term “each hypotenuse is

oriented at least one of towards and away from the centrally

positioned long axis” in great detail in the previous order

finding the term to mean “either all of the individual

hypotenuses are oriented towards the centrally positioned long

axis, or all of the individual hypotenuses are oriented away from

the centrally positioned long axis.” (March 30, 2006 Order 14-

16.) Defendant argues that by bending each tooth, the hypotenuse

is no longer oriented toward the centrally positioned axis of the

blade. Regardless of the tooth offsetting, the edge of each

individual tooth still radiates from the central axis. Upon

visual inspection with the aid of magnification, the court

concludes that no reasonable jury would fail to find that “each

hypotenuse is oriented at least one of towards and away from the

centrally positioned long axis.” Accordingly, the court will

deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement

of the asserted claims of the ‘353 and the ‘253 patents with

regard to the Offset blades.8

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 16 of 38
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 would preclude summary judgment.

17

3. ‘101 Patent 

Plaintiff argues that defendant has contributorily

infringed the ‘101 patent or induced the infringement by

defendant’s customers. “Absent direct infringement of the patent

claims, there can be neither contributory infringement nor

inducement of infringement.” Met-Coil Sys., Inc. v. Korners

Unlimited, Inc., 803 F.2d 684, 687 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Patentee

bears the burden of establishing infringement. Linear Tech.

Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1325 (Fed. Cir.

2004). Thus, plaintiff must prove direct infringement of the

method patent by a third party if it is to succeed. See Joy

Techs. Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 776 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

(holding that seller of equipment cannot be a contributory

infringer where it is established that there will be no direct

infringement of method patent by buyers of equipment); Linear

Tech. Corp., 379 F.3d at 1326 (“[A] party may still be liable for

inducement or contributory infringement of a method claim under

35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b), (c) if it sells infringing devices to

customers who use them in a way that directly infringes the

method claim.”).

Defendant argues that plaintiff has not proffered

evidence demonstrating that someone has used the patented method. 

See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Thompson, Inc., No. 03-1329, slip

op. *24 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2005) (“To use a baseball analogy, it

is like the patentee patented “the method of hitting a baseball

free hand using a bat with a long, skinny handle.” In that

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 17 of 38
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

18

situation, the patentee’s evidence that “the defendant’s product

is a bat with a long, skinny handle suitable for hitting a

baseball free hand” is not enough to infringe the method

patent.”) The product in Tech Licensing Corp., however, had other

conceivable uses. Here, it is undisputed that the only use for

the accused blades is in conjunction with a powered sagittal bone

saw for use in cutting bone. (Tadlock Decl. Exs. 21-22.) 

Further, defendant instructs its customers to use the blade only

once for each surgical procedure. (Id. Ex. 23.) Plaintiff also

submits evidence that defendant has sold the specified blades to

hospitals. (Id. Ex. 24.)

Plaintiff may prove direct infringement by a third

party through circumstantial evidence. Liquid Dynamics Corp. v.

Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“A patentee

may prove direct infringement or inducement of infringement by

either direct or circumstantial evidence.” (citing Moleculon

Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed. Cir.

1986))). Plaintiff offers evidence that when the bone is

initially contacted by the Dual-Cut blade such that a

multiplicity of different teeth contact the bone substantially

simultaneously, a linear kerf is formed. (Dornfeld Decl. Ex. N.) 

This cutting demonstration also indicates each tooth moves

progressively, half of the teeth are away from bone contact for

clearing bone ships, and half of the teeth are away from bone

contact to in order to cool when not in use. (Id.) Plaintiff

offers similar evidence for Stryker Offset blades. (Id. Ex. M.) 

This is circumstantial evidence, sufficient to create a disputed

issue of material fact, of direct infringement by a third party. 

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 18 of 38
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

19

Accordingly, the court cannot grant defendant’s motion for

summary judgment with respect to Claims 1-4 of the ‘101 patent. 

On Claim 10 of the ‘101 patent, defendant’s motion for

summary judgment with respect to the Dual-Cut blades will be

granted because the court has concluded, above, that the teeth

differ in shape. Defendant’s motion with respect to the Offset

blades will also be denied because the cutting demonstration

mentioned above also creates a disputed question of fact. 

D. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity 

of the ‘353, ‘253, and ‘101 Patents 

Defendant moves for summary judgment of invalidity of

patents-in-suit on the basis that the asserted claims are

anticipated and/or obvious by prior art, prohibited by the

statutory on-sale bar pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and

indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The party seeking to establish

the invalidity of a patent “must overcome the presumption of

validity in 35 U.S.C. § 282 by clear and convincing evidence.” 

Nystrom v. Trex Co., 374 F.3d 1105, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Standards for anticipation and obviousness are by viewed by a

person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps

Clinic, 927 F.2d at 1576; 35 U.S.C. § 103. The parties

essentially agree that the standard for adjudging one of ordinary

skill is “someone who, in 1991, would have a Bachelor of Science

degree in Mechanical Engineering and at least three years of

experience involving the design or manufacture of surgical

tools.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. of Invalidity 8; Dornfeld

Invalidity Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff would replace the term surgical

tools with mechanical devices because surgical tools could

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 19 of 38
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

20

include devices which are not primarily mechanical. (Dornfeld

Invalidity Decl. ¶ 10.)

1. Anticipation

A patent is anticipated, and therefore invalidated, by

prior art if (1) the invention it claims was known or used by

others in this country before the patent application was filed;

(2) the invention was in public use or on sale in this country

more than one year before the application was filed; (3) the

invention was described in someone else’s patent before the

patent applicant invented what is claimed; or (4) the invention

was made in this country by another inventor before it was

invented by the applicant, and the other inventor did not

abandon, suppress, or conceal his invention. See 35 U.S.C. §

102(a), (b), (e)(2), (g)(2).

An earlier invention will not “anticipate” a later

invention unless there is “no difference between the claimed

invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of

ordinary skill in the field of the invention.” Scripps Clinic

and Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.

Cir. 1991). Thus, anticipation requires the presence in a single

prior art disclosure of each and every element of a claimed

invention. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Scis., Inc.,

34 F.3d 1048, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Whether an earlier

reference anticipates a claim or claims of a patent is a question

of fact. Scripps, 927 F.3d at 1575; Operations Int’l Ltd. v.

Solutia, Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “To

anticipate a claim, a reference must disclose every element of

the challenged claim and enable one skilled in the art to make

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 20 of 38
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

21

the anticipating subject matter.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus.

Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). 

a. The ‘253 Patent

The court will discuss defendant’s anticipation

arguments with respect to the ‘253 patent first because all of

the prior art cited by defendant is asserted against this patent. 

Claims 1 and 14 of the ‘253 patent contain the following

elements: (1) a proximal end having a hub for attachment to an

oscillatory power tool; (2) a distal end having a plurality of

substantially identically shaped cutting teeth (Claim 1 requires

that they be an even number of teeth; Claim 14 does not); and (3)

tips that are “configured to be placed substantially on a tangent

which is perpendicular to a radial line extending from the center

of the power tool cutting axis that bisects the arc of travel

within which the blade travels;” so that said teeth (i) provide

better tracking when forming the kerf in the bone (Claim 14 lacks

this sub-limitation), (ii) cut progressively and sequentially as

the kerf begins to form, and (iii) provide for efficient chip

removal. Defendant argues that the following patents anticipate

Claims 1 and 14 of the ‘253 patent: U.S. Patent No. 5,122,142

(“Pascaloff ‘142”); U.S. Patent No. 5,263,972 (“Evans ‘972”);

U.S. Patent No. Des. 337,160 (“Evans ‘160”); Stryker Part No.

0277-534-053; and U.S. Patent No. 4,513,742 (“Arnegger ‘742”)

(cited for anticipation of Claim 14 only). 

Defendant’s expert, Dr. Carl Jacobs, opines that each

reference anticipates Claim 14 of the ‘253 patent and Claim 1 is

anticipated by Pascaloff ‘142, Evans ‘972, Evans ‘160, Stryker

Part No. 0277-534-053. (Jacobs Invalidity Decl.) These

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 21 of 38
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

22

references are drawings of surgical saw blades that show tips of

teeth placed somewhat on a line. However, Figure 5 of Pascaloff

‘142 indicates that the teeth are not substantially arrayed on a

tangent. 

Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. David Dornfeld states that it

is improper, as a matter of proper scientific analysis, to “rely

solely on drawings in patents and other written materials to

determine the actual shape, dimensions, or functionality of an

object as the drawings, without more, generally do not provide

sufficient information from which to make such determinations.” 

(Dornfeld Invalidity Decl. ¶ 20.) As an example, plaintiff

submits a blade designed by Gregory May, which appears to show a

flat-top configuration. (Hulse Invalidity Decl. Ex. 27.) 

However, Mr. May testified that the blade he designed had teeth

on an arc. (Id. Ex. 42.) Further, Dornfeld argues that one

skilled in the art “would have understood that such drawings

depict blades with tips placed on an arc, as that was the

standard design in the field in the 1991 time frame and earlier.” 

(Id.) 

On summary judgment, any inferences drawn from the

underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to

the party opposing the motion, not the motion’s proponent. 

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (1986). In light of testimony from

Mr. May and Dr. Dornfeld, a reasonable jury could find that Evans

‘942, Evans ‘160, Stryker Part No. 0277-534-053, and Arnegger

‘742 do not have blades with tips “configured to be placed

substantially on a tangent.” Whether each reference anticipates

a flat-top configuration is a disputed question of material fact.

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 22 of 38
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

23

Similarly, plaintiff’s expert asserts after consulting

the report and exhibits of defendant’s expert as well as the

patents-in-suit and the cited references that none of the cited

references indicate a blade with teeth that (i) provide better

tracking when forming the kerf in the bone, (ii) cut

progressively and sequentially as the kerf begins to form, and

(iii) provide for efficient chip removal. (Dornfeld Invalidity

Decl. ¶¶ 25, 33, 39, 49, 58.) Thus, whether each reference

demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the referenced

blade has such teeth is a disputed question for the trier of

fact. A reference must disclose every element of the challenged

claim. PPG Indus., 75 F.3d at 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Because

disputed questions remain concerning certain elements, the court

cannot conclude on summary judgment that any of the references

anticipates Claims 1 and 14. 

Defendant argues that Pascaloff ‘142 anticipates Claims

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 15-18 of the ‘253 patent. Claims 15-18

are dependant on Claim 14 so summary judgment cannot be granted

for the same reason as discussed with respect to Claim 14. 

Claims 2 and 4 require, inter alia, a blade that has tips

“configured to be placed substantially on a tangent.” Claims 6,

8, 10, and 12 require, inter alia, a blade that has tips

“configured to be placed substantially on a tangent” and teeth

that cut such that said teeth (i) provide better tracking when

forming the kerf in the bone, (ii) cut progressively and

sequentially as the kerf begins to form, and (iii) provide for

efficient chip removal. Pascaloff ‘142 raises at least the

following questions that must be resolved by the trier of fact:

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 23 of 38
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

24

(1) whether Pascaloff ‘142 demonstrates by clear and convincing

evidence that its blade has tips “configured to be placed

substantially on a tangent” so that it has a flat-top

configuration, and (2) whether its blade has teeth that cut such

that said teeth (i) provide better tracking when forming the kerf

in the bone, (ii) cut progressively and sequentially as the kerf

begins to form, and (iii) provide for efficient chip removal.

Therefore, Pascaloff ‘142 does not anticipate these claims as

matter of law. 

b. The ‘353 Patent 

Defendant argues that Pascaloff ‘142 anticipates Claims

1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 of the ‘353 patent. Claim 1 requires,

inter alia, a blade with teeth wherein the “tips are arrayed on a

line perpendicular to the centrally positioned long axis.” (Id.) 

Pascaloff ‘142 does not anticipate Claim 1 of the ‘353 patent as

a matter of law because there is a disputed material fact whether

its blade has tips “configured to be placed substantially on a

tangent” so that it has a flat-top configuration. The only

independent claim of the ‘353 patent that plaintiff alleges

defendant’s products infringe is Claim 1. All other asserted

claims in the patent are dependent upon Claim 1. (March 30, 2006

Order 3-4.) Because Pascaloff ‘142 does not anticipate Claim 1

as a matter of law; Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are not anticipated

as a matter of law. 

c. The ‘101 Patent

Defendant argues that Pascaloff ‘142, Evans ‘160, Evans

‘972, Stryker Part No. 0277-534-053, and Arnegger ‘742 anticipate

Claims 1-4 and 10 of the ‘101 patent. As discussed, supra,

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 24 of 38
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

25

Claims 2, 3, and 4 all modify and depend on Claim 1. Claim 1

requires, inter alia, teeth such that said teeth (i) provide

better tracking when forming the kerf in the bone, (ii) cut

progressively and sequentially as the kerf begins to form, and

(iii) provide for efficient chip removal. Whether each of the

above references indicates a blade that demonstrates such cutting

characteristics is a disputed question of fact. Accordingly,

summary judgment is not proper for Claims 1-4. 

Claim 10 requires, inter alia, a blade with teeth (1)

wherein the teeth “are configured to be placed substantially on a

tangent perpendicular” to the central axis; and (2) said teeth

(i) provide better tracking when forming the kerf in the bone,

(ii) cut progressively and sequentially as the kerf begins to

form, and (iii) provide for efficient chip removal. With regard

to Claim 10, the following facts must be determined by the trier

of fact: (1) whether the reference demonstrates by clear and

convincing evidence that the referenced blade has tips

“configured to be placed substantially on a tangent” so that it

has a flat-top configuration, and (2) whether the referenced

blade has teeth that (i) provide better tracking when forming the

kerf in the bone, (ii) cut progressively and sequentially as the

kerf begins to form, and (iii) provide for efficient chip

removal. Accordingly, summary judgment is not proper for Claim

10. 

Because the court finds that there are disputed issues

of fact as to whether any cited reference anticipates all the

elements of any asserted claim, it cannot conclude as a matter of

law that a reasonable jury would find that any of the above

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 25 of 38
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

26

references anticipates any asserted claim by clear and convincing

evidence.

2. On-Sale Bar

A person is not entitled to patent an invention if it

was “on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the

date of the application for patent in the United States.” 35

U.S.C. § 102(b). The on-sale bar applies when there is a

commercial offer for sale, which includes two elements: (1) a

commercial offer and (2) the offer was for the patented

invention. Sparton Corp. v. United States, 399 F.3d 1321, 1323

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“While the Supreme Court has not explained what

is necessary for a ‘commercial offer for sale,’ we have held that

two elements are necessary. Namely, a court must find that (1)

there was a ‘commercial offer’; and (2) that offer was for the

patented invention.” (citing Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra,

L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2001))). 

Plaintiff raises a material disputed fact as to whether

there was a commercial offer of Stryker Part No. 0277-534-053

prior to the critical date of May 31, 1990. Specifically,

defendant’s drawings for this part indicate a date of June, 1990

(Hulse Invalidity Decl. Ex. 25). As discussed, supra, Part

II.D.1, whether Stryker Part No. 0277-534-053 has a flat-top

configuration and the cutting characteristics detailed in the

claims is a disputed fact question. Defendant fails to meet its

burden on summary judgment to invoke the on-sale bar. 

3. Obviousness

A patent is invalid due to obviousness “if the

differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 26 of 38
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

27

the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would

have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person

having ordinary skill in the art . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 103. The

determination of obviousness is a question of law based on

underlying factual considerations, including (1) the scope and

content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior

art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in

the art; and (4) any “secondary considerations,” such as whether

the inventor was responding to long felt but unsolved needs, the

failures of others, and the commercial success of the invention. 

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). 

The court must also take care not to enter the

“tempting but forbidden zone of hindsight” in analyzing whether

an invention would have been obvious. In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d

994, 998 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Unlike anticipation, where a given

reference must contain all elements of an asserted patent claim,

elements from different prior art references may be combined;

however, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or reason in

those references to select the particular elements and combine

them as was combined by the inventor of the challenged patent. 

Cf. Vulcan Eng’g Co., Inc. v. Fata Aluminium, Inc., 278 F.3d

1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

a. The ‘253 Patent

Defendant argues that Claim 14 of the ‘253 patent is

obvious alone or with any combination of Pascaloff ‘142, Evans

‘160, Evans ‘972, Stryker Part No. 0277-534-053, and Arnegger

‘742. As discussed, supra, none of these five cited references

above alone would render Claim 14 of the ‘253 patent obvious. It

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 27 of 38
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

28

remains a disputed question of material fact whether any of the

five references have a blade constructed in a flat-top

configuration. Defendant does not meet its burden of showing a

combination of the above references that would indicate the next

obvious step in the inventive process would have been 

constructing a blade with a flat-top configuration. Because the

defendant has failed to show why a flat-top configuration is

obvious based on the cited references, this essential question of

fact has not been conclusively established. The court cannot

conclude that Claim 14 is obvious as a matter of law. Further,

defendant does not meet its burden of showing a combination of

the above references that would indicate the next obvious step in

the inventive process would have been to create a blade with a

cutting action such that the “teeth cut both progressively and

sequentially” to “provide faster aggressive cutting and efficient

chip removal” and “better tracking.” 

Moreover, secondary considerations “can often serve as

insurance against the insidious attraction of the siren hindsight

when confronted with a difficult task of evaluating the prior

art.” W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d

1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). 

Secondary considerations include whether the inventor was

responding to long felt but unsolved needs, the failures of

others, and the commercial success of the invention. Graham, 383

U.S. at 17. Plaintiff presents evidence that there was a long

felt need for a different type of cutting blade given that blades

prior to 1991 often kicked out of the cutting grove. (Fisher

Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also presents evidence that, given the

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 28 of 38
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

29

state of the art at the time of invention, it was not expected

that a flat-top configuration would perform more effectively at

cutting bone than the predominate curved-top configuration. (Id.

¶¶ 4-6.) Additionally, plaintiff presents evidence that the

inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit were commercially

successful. (Id. ¶ 6; Pollock Decl. ¶ 6.) Secondary

considerations are not themselves dispositive. See Newell Cos.

v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1988). However,

this evidence further calls into question defendant’s assertion

that there is not a disputed material fact that a combination of

references encompasses all elements of Claim 14 or that a missing

element was the next obvious step in the inventive process so

that the court may conclude that Claim 14 was obvious. 

Defendant argues that Claim 1 is obvious given any or a

combination of Pascaloff ‘142, Evans ‘160, Evans ‘972, and

Stryker Part No. 0277-534-053; Claims 2 and 17 are obvious given

any or a combination of Evans ‘160, Evans ‘972, Stryker Part No.

0277-534-053, and Arnegger ‘742; and Claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15,

16, and 18 are obvious given any or a combination of Evans ‘160,

Evans ‘972, Stryker Part No. 0277-534-053, and Arnegger ‘742. As

discussed, supra, no cited reference alone would render these

claims obvious. As discussed with respect to Claim 14 of the

‘253 patent, defendant does not meet its burden of showing a

combination of the above references that would indicate the next

obvious step in the inventive process would have been

constructing blades with a flat-top configuration. Thus, there

is no combination of the above references that would render these

claims obvious on summary judgment. Moreover, secondary

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 29 of 38
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

30

considerations bolster the court’s decision to deny defendant’s

motion for summary judgment of invalidity with respect to these

claims. 

b. The ‘353 Patent

Defendant argues that Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 of

the ‘353 patent are obvious given Pascaloff ‘142 or a combination

of Pascaloff ‘142, Evans ‘160, Evans ‘972, Stryker Part No. 0277-

534-053, and Arnegger ‘742. As discussed, supra, Pascaloff ‘142

does not render the ‘353 patent claims obvious on summary

judgment. As also discussed, supra, defendant does not meet its

burden of showing a combination of the above references that

would indicate the next obvious step in the inventive process

would have been constructing blades with a flat-top

configuration. Thus, there is no combination of the above

references that would render Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 obvious

on summary judgment. Moreover, secondary considerations bolster

the court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion for summary

judgment of invalidity with respect to these claims. 

c. The ‘101 Patent

Defendant argues that Claims 1-4 and 10 are obvious

given any or a combination of Pascaloff ‘142, Evans ‘160, Evans

‘972, Stryker Part No. 0277-534-053, and Arnegger ‘742. As

discussed, supra, none of the five cited references above alone

would render Claims 1-4 and 10 of the ‘101 patent obvious. 

Because defendant does not meet its burden of showing a

combination of the above references that would indicate the next

obvious step in the inventive process would have been

constructing blades with a flat-top configuration, there is no

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 30 of 38
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

31

combination of the above references that would render Claims 1-4

and 10 obvious on summary judgment. Further, defendant does not

meet its burden of showing a combination of the above references

that would indicate the next obvious step in the inventive

process would have been to create a blade with a cutting action

such that the “teeth cut both progressively and sequentially” to

“provide faster aggressive cutting and efficient chip removal”

and “better tracking.” Moreover, secondary considerations

bolster the court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion for

summary judgment of invalidity with respect to these claims. 

Because this court finds that there are disputed facts

as to whether any combination of the cited references renders any

asserted claim obvious, the court cannot conclude as a matter of

law that any asserted claim is obvious. 

4. Indefiniteness

The claims of a patent must be definite enough so as to

“particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject

matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C.

§ 112. The claims must “inform the public during the life of the

patent of the limits of the monopoly asserted, so that it may be

known which features may be safely used or manufactured without a

license and which may not.” United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith

Co., 317 U.S. 228, 232 (1942). A claim fails to meet this

requirement if one of ordinary skill in the art would not

understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the

specification. Union Pac. Resource Co. v. Chesapeake Energy

Corp., 236 F.3d 684 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Morton Int’l, Inc. v.

Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 31 of 38
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

32

“A determination of claim indefiniteness is a legal

conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty

as the construer of patent claims.” LNP Eng’g Plastics, Inc. v.

Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 275 F.3d 1347, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

(citing Personalized Media Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. Int’l Trade

Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 705,(Fed. Cir. 1998)). Because an issued

patent is presumed valid, the burden is on the defendant to prove

indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. Morton Int’l, 5

F.3d at 1470. In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence on a

motion for summary judgment, the court must take this burden into

consideration. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d

955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

a. The ‘253 Patent

Defendant argues that the following claim terms in the

‘253 patent are indefinite: “substantially identically shaped

teeth,” “better tracking,” “progressively and sequentially,”

“faster aggressive cutting,” and “efficient chip removal.” The

court defined “substantially identically shaped,” supra, Part

II.B.2. Defendant takes the term “better tracking” out of

context. The full context is that “said teeth contact the bone

to be cut thereby to provide better tracking of said surgical saw

blade when forming a kerf in the bone.” (Gont Noninfringement

Decl. Ex. E (“253 patent 6:64-66).) Plaintiff’s expert asserts

that one of skill in the art would know how a typical blade

tracked in 1991 so that, in its proper context, said person would

understand this to be an improvement over the state of the art

existing at that time. (Dornfeld Invalidity Decl. ¶ 78.) 

Similarly, “faster aggressive cutting,” and “efficient chip

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 32 of 38
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

The terms which defendant argues are indefinite with 9

respect to Claim 10 of the ‘101 patent are the five claims that

the court has already determined are not indefinite, supra, Part

II.D.4.a, the ‘253 patent indefiniteness analysis. 

33

removal” are understandable to persons skilled in the art. 

(Dornfeld Invalidity Decl. ¶ 79.) Moreover, the ‘101 patent

elaborates on the method whereby the teeth cut progressively and

sequentially. (Gont Noninfringement Decl. Ex. E (‘101 patent,

5:66-6:17) (describing a method referred to as “progressive

staircasing”).) Defendant fails to carry its burden. See Eli

Lilly & Co, 251 F.3d at 962. The terms are not indefinite. 

b. The ‘353 Patent

Defendant argues that the term “substantially

identically shaped” utilized in the ‘353 patent is indefinite. 

The court defined “substantially identically shaped,” supra, Part

II.B.2. The term is not indefinite.

c. The ‘101 Patent

Defendant asserts that several of the terms in the ‘101 

patent are invalid. Aside from the terms which the court has

established are not invalid with respect to the ‘253 patent,

those contained within Claims 1-4 and 10 of the ‘101 patent are

the following: “substantially simultaneously,” “somewhat linear,”

“kerf is substantially V-shaped,” “alternately and sequentially

contacting the kerf.” Terms of approximation are not 9

indefinite. The terms read within their context would provide

someone skilled in the art the scope of the claimed invention. 

(Dornfeld Invalidity Decl. ¶¶ 80-82.) Defendant fails to carry

its burden. See Eli Lilly & Co, 251 F.3d at 962. The terms are

not indefinite. 

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 33 of 38
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

Stryker Offset Blades includes Stryker Part Nos. 4225- 10

070-090, 4225-85-127, 2108-182-001, and 4113-119-090S1. Stryker

Parts No. 2108-102S12 and 2108-151S4 do not have offset teeth. 

34

Because the defendant has not shown by clear and

convincing evidence that the challenged terms are indefinite, the

court will deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment of

invalidity of the patents-in-suit on the grounds of

indefiniteness. Accordingly, the court will deny defendant’s

motion for summary judgment of invalidity with respect to the

‘353 patent, the ‘253 patent, and Claims 1-4 and 10 of the ‘101

patent. 

E. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of

Infringement of the ‘353 and ‘253 Patents

To show that a product literally infringes a claim, the

plaintiff must demonstrate that each element of the properly

constructed claim is found in the accused product. Cross Med.

Prods., Inc. v. Metronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54

F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“To establish literal

infringement, every limitation set forth in a claim must be found

in an accused product, exactly.”) Plaintiff moves for partial

summary judgement of infringement of Claim 1 of the ‘353 patent

and Claim 2 of ‘253 patent only with regard to the Stryker Offset

blades.10

Defendant argues that these blades do not infringe both

Claim 1 of the ‘353 patent and Claim 2 of the ‘253 because these

blades lack the following claim limitations: (1) “substantially

identically shaped teeth” that are shaped “substantially as right

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 34 of 38
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

For Claim 2 of the ‘253 patent, the exact specification 11

is “each hypotenuse is oriented at least one of towards or away

from the centrally positioned long axis.” Defendant’s argument

does not depend on the variation between the terms and defendant

simply refers to its argument regarding the ‘353 patent, which in

turn refers to defendant’s own motion for summary judgment of

noninfringement. (Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 8-9,

11-12.) 

Defendant does not make this argument for Stryker Parts 12

No. 2108-102S12 and 2108-151S4. 

35

triangles,” (2) “each hypotenuse is oriented toward the centrally

positioned long axis,” and (3) “the tips are arrayed on a line 11

perpendicular to the centrally positioned long axis.” The court 12

concluded, supra, that the Offset blades do include the first two

claim limitations. 

The court has previously found in its March 30, 2006,

Order held that the tips of the teeth of the offset blade are

“‘substantially’ positioned on a line, or tangent.” (March 30,

2006, Order 21.) Further, “the offset teeth, although not

centered on such a line, may still be positioned on that line.” 

(Id.) For Claim 2 of the ‘253 patent, the relevant claim

limitation is “the tips are configured to be placed substantially

on a tangent which is perpendicular to a radial line extending

from the center line of the power tool cutting axis that bisects

the arc of travel within which the blade travels.” The court

concludes that no reasonable jury would fail to find this claim

limitation in the Stryker Offset blades. Accordingly, the court

will grant summary judgment for plaintiff on Claim 2 of the ‘253

patent. 

Claim 1 of the ‘353 patent requires that “the tips are

arrayed on a line perpendicular to the centrally positioned long

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 35 of 38
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

36

axis.” The court has construed “arrayed on a line” to mean

“positioned on a single line,” and a “tip” to mean “one or more

tips at the distal end of a tooth.” Given these definitions, the

court previously held that “the offset teeth, although not

centered on such a line, may still be positioned on that line.”

(March 30, 2006, Order 21.) Defendant argues that the tips are

not arrayed on a line because there is not a line that connects

each center point of each tip. Standing the blade on end and

sighting along the teeth at the top, defendant and its experts

observe that a single imaginary line cannot be drawn along the

horizontal centers of the tips of each of the teeth.

In the days when all boys in the seventh grade were

required to take a class in wood shop, we all learned on day one

the difference between a cross-cut saw, which is used to cut

across the grain, and a rip saw, which is used to cut with the

grain. Cross-cut saws have the teeth angled alternatively in

opposite directions and rip saws do not. Because most sawing is

done across the grain, we learned that most saws sold and used

are cross-cut saws. The Stryker Offset blade looks like a crosscut saw. There is nothing particularly unique about it in that

sense. In fact, the Synvasive blade which was provided to the

court also appears to be a cross-cut saw. Using defendant’s

interpretation, no cross-cut saw, however straight, could ever be

said to have the tips of its teeth positioned along a single

line. That interpretation, however, would not be consistent with

the court’s construction of the terms. 

The court has defined a “tip” as “one or more tips at

the distal end of a tooth.” The court’s definition of a tip is

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 36 of 38
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

37

broader than the center of each tip. The court has carefully

examined the actual blades at issue. If a straight edge is

placed along the tips of the teeth of the offset blade it will

come in contact with the tip of each and every tooth. 

Defendant’s experts cannot and do not dispute that fact. Thus,

consistent with the court’s construction of the terms, no

reasonable jury would fail to find that the tips are arrayed on a

line that is perpendicular to the central axis. The court will

accordingly grant summary judgment for plaintiff on Claim 1 of

the ‘353 patent. 

As for Stryker Parts No. 2108-102S12 and 2108-151S4,

defendant argues that the court cannot conclude that every

element of the claim limitations is met because plaintiff has not

produced an actual physical specimen of these no-longer

manufactured blades, and these blades do not have teeth that were

“substantially identically shaped” and “shaped as right

triangles.” Plaintiff proffers engineering specifications. 

(Dornfeld Infringement Decl. Ex. B.) Based on the engineering

schematic, the court concludes that a jury finding that the

blades were not substantially identically shaped and shaped

substantially as right triangles would be unreasonable. 

Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment with respect to Stryker Parts No. 2108-102S12 and 2108-

151S4.

 III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

(1) defendant’s motion for summary judgment of

noninfringement of Claims 1 and 14 of the ‘253 patent and Claim

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 37 of 38
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

38

10 of the ‘101 patent with respect to the Dual-Cut blades be, and

the same hereby is, GRANTED; 

(2) defendant’s motion for summary judgment of

noninfringement of Claims 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 17 of the ‘101

patent be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; 

(3) defendant’s motion for summary judgment of

noninfringement of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4 of the ‘101 patent with

respect to both Dual-Cut and Offset Blades, and Claim 10 of the

‘101 patent with respect to the Offset blades, be, and the same

hereby is, DENIED; 

(4) defendant’s motion for summary judgment of

noninfringement of the all asserted claims of the ‘353 patent and

‘253 patent with respect to the Offset blades be, and the same

hereby is, DENIED; 

(5) defendant’s motion for summary judgment of

invalidity of the ‘353 patent, the ‘253 patent, and Claims 1-4

and 10 the ‘101 patent, be, and the same hereby is, DENIED;

(6) plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of

Claim 1 of the ‘353 patent and Claim 2 of the ‘253 patent with

respect to the Offset blades and Stryker Parts No. 2108-102S12

and 2108-151S4 be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

DATED: February 16, 2007

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 38 of 38