Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01066/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01066-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDTRONIC VASCULAR INC.,

et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 06-1066 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR 

SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the court’s December 21,

2007 claim construction order, and specifically, the court’s construction of the term

“polygon.” The claim construction order construed “polygon” as “a closed arrowhead shape

mad up of curved lines, straight lines, or a combination of curved and straight lines.”

See Order Construing Claims at 20:27-21:2. Plaintiffs contend, however, that this

construction was erroneous, and that the proper construction of “polygon” continues to be 

“a closed figure made up of curved lines, straight lines, or a combination of curved and

straight lines, for example, a closed arrowhead shape.” For the reasons that follow, the

court agrees with plaintiffs. 

Preliminarily, neither plaintiffs nor defendants sought, or seek, a construction of

“polygon” that is fully consistent with the ordinary meaning of the phrase. While plaintiffs

assert this is the case, they originally argued for at least some deviation from the ordinary

dictionary meaning of the phrase, which generally defines “polygon” as a closed figure

made of straight lines, rather than curved lines. See, e.g., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate

Dictionary 962 (11th Ed.). Notwithstanding, however, the question raised by plaintiffs’

motion is simply whether the court’s construction of the term “polygon” correctly reflects the

Case 4:06-cv-01066-PJH Document 305 Filed 01/31/08 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

2

meaning that the term would have “to a person of ordinary skill in the art,” “in the context of

the entire patent, including the specification.” See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d

1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313,

1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

As plaintiffs have shown here, it does not. First, plaintiffs have highlighted the fact

that, while the court’s order correctly noted that the specification of the ‘037 Patent refers to

“repeating pattern” A and B as “polygons or arrowheads,” the specification only does so

once. See ‘037 Patent at 8:58-61 (emphasis added). In fact, the vast majority of

references to the term “polygon” that are employed throughout the patent specification all

omit reference to the term “arrowhead” in mentioning the term “polygon.” See, e.g.,id. at

3:67; 4:20-22; 4:28; 4:57-60; 5:1-4; 6:21-23; 6:37-40; 12:23-24. Properly viewed, therefore,

the language of the specification as a whole does not actually support limiting the term

“polygon” to an arrowhead shape. 

Second, even had the court been correct in relying on the specification’s sole

reference to “arrowhead” in connection with the term “polygon,” plaintiffs point out that the

language of the specification relied on by the court pertains to that portion of the

specification discussing the illustrations contained in the patent’s figure drawings. See ‘037

Patent at 8:58-61 (“Thus, in the illustrated embodiments, adjacent rows of repeating pattern

A and repeating pattern B may be considered to b[e] interlocking polygons or

‘arrowheads’”). As the law makes clear, however, limitations from preferred or illustrated

embodiments, cannot be read into the claim language absent an express intent to do so. 

See Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(“The

claims must be read in view of the specification, but limitations from the specification are

not to be read into the claims”). While the court properly noted this standard throughout its

claim construction order, the court finds, on closer inspection here, that it nonetheless failed

to apply this standard appropriately to the instant claim term. 

Finally, plaintiffs have also noted that the court’s ruling is erroneous because the

Case 4:06-cv-01066-PJH Document 305 Filed 01/31/08 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

specification notably defines polygon with reference to a non-arrowhead shape. See ‘037

Patent at 9:6-10 (“various walls of first repeating pattern A and second repeating pattern B

may be omitted (and even desired) at selected points along the body of the stent without

departing from the spirit and scope of the invention”). Since this alternative embodiment

relates to the same repeating patterns A and B that were previously described as

“polygons” and “arrowheads,” plaintiffs assert that the specification clearly contemplates

that a “polygon” can include non-arrowhead shapes. Unlike plaintiffs’ prior arguments, the

court does not necessarily find this argument persuasive. For although plaintiffs are correct

that the specification does describe a means of removing side walls from first repeating

patterns A and B, the specification does not affirmatively follow its description of this

alternative embodiment with an express claim that it would also be comprised of a

“polygon.”

Nonetheless, on balance and in view of the foregoing reasons set forth, the court

concludes that its prior construction of “polygon” overlooked material facts previously

presented to the court, and improperly read limitations from the ‘037 Patent’s preferred or

illustrated embodiments into the claim language, in contravention of the case law that was

otherwise duly relied upon by the court in its order. For that reason, reconsideration of the

court’s construction of “polygon” is appropriate pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3), and

plaintiffs’ motion is hereby GRANTED. 

As such, and in reliance on the above, the court hereby amends its prior

construction of “polygon”, and construes the term as follows: “a closed figure made up of

curved lines, straight lines, or a combination of curved and straight lines, for

example, a closed arrowhead shape.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-01066-PJH Document 305 Filed 01/31/08 Page 3 of 3