Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04455/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04455-21/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDTRONIC, INC., et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-04455 JSW

ORDER ON MOTION TO

RECONSIDER CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION OF “STENT”

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration

filed by Plaintiffs, Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic, U.S.A., Inc., and Medtronic Vascular, Inc.

(collectively “Medtronic”). The matter is fully briefed, and the Court finds the matter suitable

for disposition without oral argument. The Court HEREBY GRANTS Medtronic’s motion for

reconsideration. 

Also before the Court is Medtronic’s request for leave to file the Expert Declaration of

Dr. Dimitris Lagoudas in support of its motion for reconsideration, which responds further to

the Cragg article that fueled, in part, Medtronic’s request for reconsideration. The Court has

not considered the Cragg article to which the declaration responds in reconsidering the

construction of the term “stent.” Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT this latter motion.

Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 116 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The Court shall not repeat the standards applicable to claim construction,

which are set forth in full in its Order construing the claims, and which have been applied in

this Order. (See Claim Construction Order at 4:4-7:5.) 

2

DISCUSSION1

On October 19, 2007, this Court issued its Claim Construction Order. In that Order, the

Court construed the term “stent,” as it is used in U.S. Patent Nos. 4,886,062 (“the ‘062 Patent”), 

6,656,219 (“the ‘219 Patent”), and 6,923,828 (“the ‘828 Patent”) (collectively, “the Wiktor

Patents”) to mean: a supporting device, without any attached fabric or graft material. (Docket

No. 91.)

On October 29, 2007, Medtronic filed a motion for clarification of the Court’s

construction of this term to determine if the Court had intended an “open-ended” or a “closedended” construction. (Docket No. 93.) On October 30, 2007, the Court clarified that, in

Medtronic’s terms, it intended a “closed-ended” construction, and granted Medtronic leave to

file the instant motion addressing whether the Court’s construction was correct or whether the

term stent should be construed to mean “a supporting device.”

Having considered the parties’ arguments, relevant legal authority, and the record in this

case, the Court concludes that its prior construction was incorrect and GRANTS Medtronic’s

motion. When the term stent is used in the preamble of the claims, it is followed by the openended transitional term “comprising.” This term supports Medtronic’s position that the claims

may incorporate additional, unrecited elements. See, e.g., CollegeNet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself,

Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc.,

212 F.3d 1377, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“A drafter uses the term ‘comprising’ to mean ‘I

claim at least what follows and potentially more.’”). Moreover, upon further review of the

claims and the specification, the Court cannot say Wiktor clearly disavowed or disclaimed the

broad construction of “stent” that Medtronic seeks. Accordingly, the Court cannot say that the

term “stent” should be limited to a bare stent, reconsiders and reverses its previous construction,

and concludes that the term “stent” as used in the Wiktor Patents should be construed to mean

“a supporting device.” 

Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 116 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Medtronic’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The

parties are HEREBY ORDERED to appear, as scheduled for the case management conference

on December 21, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. If, in light of this Order, any modifications need to be made

to the Joint Case Management statement filed on November 9, 2007, they shall submit a

supplemental case management statement by December 14, 2007. If no modifications are

required, no further case management statement is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 116 Filed 11/30/07 Page 3 of 3