Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02261/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02261-13/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL 

JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘575

PATENT

1 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02261-EMC

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

James D. Petruzzi (Bar No. 115175)

THE PETRUZZI LAW FIRM

4900 Woodway, Suite 745

Houston, TX 77056

Telephone: (713) 840-9993

Facsimile: (713) 877-9100

jdpetruzzi@gmail.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Marc H. Cohen (Bar No. 168773)

Lien K. Dang (Bar No. 254221)

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

3330 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Telephone: (650) 859-7000

Facsimile: (650) 859-7500

marc.cohen@kirkland.com

lien.dang@kirkland.com

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DR. SHAUN L. W. SAMUELS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TRIVASCULAR, INC., ET AL.

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02261-EMC

STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND 

FINAL JUDGMENT OF NON- INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘575 

PATENT 

TRIVASCULAR, INC.,

Counter-Claimant,

vs.

DR. SHAUN L. W. SAMUELS,

Counter-Defendant.

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Dr. Shaun L.W. Samuels (“Samuels”) and Defendant TriVascular, Inc. 

(“TriVascular”), and individual Defendants Michael A. Chobotov, Robert G. Whirley, and Joseph 

W. Humphrey (“Individual Defendants”) (“the Parties”) stipulate and move for entry of judgment of 

non-infringement under all claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,007,575 (“the ’575 patent”) as to the 

Defendants based on the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 92);

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 98 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 10
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL 

JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘575

PATENT

2 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02261-EMC

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

WHEREAS, entering judgment of non-infringement now will allow the parties to forego 

further litigation in this Court of the ’575 patent, while preserving Samuels’s right to appeal the 

Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 92);

WHEREAS, Civil L.R. 54-1(a) requires that Bill of Costs be served and filed no later than 14 

days after entry of judgment;

WHEREAS, Civil L.R. 54-5 requires that a Motion for Fees be served and filed no later than 

14 days after entry of judgment; and 

WHEREAS, Samuels intends to appeal the Court’s forthcoming entry of a judgment of noninfringement based on this stipulation. 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties, subject to the approval of the 

Court, as follows:

1. This is a patent infringement action brought by Samuels against TriVascular, Michael 

A. Chobotov, Robert G. Whirley, and Joseph W. Humphrey. Samuels filed this patent litigation 

action against TriVascular on May 17, 2013. See Dkt. No. 1. Samuels filed a Second Amended 

Complaint on August 13, 2015 adding the Individual Defendants. See Dkt. No. 77. The Defendant 

TriVascular filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims to Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint on August 27, 2015 (Dkt. No. 78), and the Individual Defendants filed their 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses on August 27, 2015 (Dkt. No. 79). TriVascular’s pending 

counterclaims are patent counterclaims of non-infringement (First Counterclaim) and invalidity 

(Second Counterclaim), as well as counterclaims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel 

(Third, Fourth and Fifth Counterclaims). Plaintiff has asserted infringement of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-

17, 19-21, and 23-24 of the ‘575. 

2. On November 12, 2015, this Court construed certain claim terms found in the ’575 

patent. (Claim Construction Order, Dkt. No. 92). 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 98 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 10
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL 

JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘575

PATENT

3 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02261-EMC

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. The Parties disputed the construction of the term “means for injecting an inflation 

material into said cuff to inflate it “ and “means for inflating the cuff with inflation material” of 

claims 1, 14 and 23 of the ’575 patent as follows: 

Claim Term Samuels Defendants

means for injecting an 

inflation material into 

said cuff to inflate it 

[claim1]

This is a means-plusfunction element governed 

by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6.

Function: The function is 

injecting an inflation 

material into said cuff to 

inflate it.

Structure: The 

corresponding structure is 

an inflation device, such as 

the kind of syringe shown 

in Figs. 1 and 9a-9c (71, 

117) and inflation tubing 

(61, 115).

This is a means-plusfunction limitation 

governed by 35 U.S.C. 

§112, ¶ 6. 

Function: The function is 

injecting an inflation 

material into said cuff to 

inflate it. 

Structure: The 

corresponding structure is 

an inflation syringe of the 

kind shown in Figs. 1 and 

9a-9c (71, 117) containing 

an inflation material; 

inflation tubing (61, 115) 

with a mating end (63) that 

opens a valve by 

separating opposing 

leaflets (51, 53) that are in

an inflation port (39, 123) 

to inflate the cuff. 

Claim Term Samuels Defendants

means for inflating the 

cuff with inflation 

material [claim 14]

means for inflating the 

plurality of cuffs with 

inflation material [claim 

23]

This is a means-plusfunction element governed 

by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6.

Function: The function is 

inflating the cuff/plurality 

of cuffs with inflation 

material.

Structure: The 

corresponding structure is 

an inflation device, such as 

the kind of syringe shown 

in Figs. 1 and 9a-9c (71, 

117) and inflation tubing 

This is a means-plusfunction limitation 

governed by 35 U.S.C. 

§112, ¶ 6. 

Function: The function is 

inflating the cuff/plurality 

of cuffs with inflation 

material. 

Structure: The 

corresponding structure is 

an inflation syringe of the 

kind shown in Figs. 1 and 

9a-9c (71, 117) containing 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 98 Filed 12/17/15 Page 3 of 10
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL 

JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘575

PATENT

4 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02261-EMC

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

(61, 115) an inflation material; 

inflation tubing (61, 115) 

with a mating end (63) that 

opens a valve by 

separating opposing 

leaflets (51, 53) that are in 

an inflation port (39, 123) 

to inflate the cuff with the 

inflation material. 

4. The Parties also disputed the construction of the term “valve” of claims 1, 14 and 23 

of the ’575 patent as follows:

Claim Term Samuels Defendants

a valve integral [with the 

inflatable cuff, cl. 1] [with 

said inflation port, cl. 14] 

[with one of the plurality 

of cuffs, cl. 23] for 

permitting entry of the 

inflation material . . . and 

thereafter sealing said 

cuff to prevent deflation

Any structure that affects 

fluid flow, formed or 

combined as a unit with the 

cuff, and is capable of not 

stopping inflation material 

from entering the cuff from 

the means for injecting and 

capable of stopping 

inflation material from 

leaving the cuff after the 

injection material has 

entered the cuff to prevent 

deflation.

a device built-in to the 

[cuff] [inflation port] [one 

of the cuffs] that has a 

movable part (such as 

leaflets) that opens to 

permit entry of the 

inflation material and 

thereafter closes to seal the 

cuff to prevent deflation. 

This construction does not 

cover inflation tubing 

inserted into an inflation 

port with an interference 

fit.

Claim Term Samuels Defendants

a valve Any structure that affects 

fluid flow 

See above

Claim Term Samuels Defendants

“for permitting entry of 

the inflation material 

from the means for 

injecting and thereafter

sealing said cuff to 

prevent deflation”

Capable of not stopping 

inflation material from 

entering the cuff from the 

means for injecting and 

capable of stopping 

inflation material from 

leaving the cuff after the 

injection material has 

entered to cuff to prevent 

deflation.

See above

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 98 Filed 12/17/15 Page 4 of 10
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL 

JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘575

PATENT

5 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02261-EMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. The Parties also disputed the construction of the term “inflatable and deflatable cuff,” 

“a cuff,” and “a plurality of cuffs” of claims 1, 14 and 23 of the ’575 patent as follows:

Claim Term Samuels Defendants

inflatable and deflatable 

cuff of generally hollow 

cylindrical continuation 

(sic. configuration) 

Cuff of generally hollow 

cylindrical configuration 

(per Claim Construction 

Order)

a band-like structure that 

has an inner surface and 

outer surface creating an 

inflatable chamber that may 

be inflated by filling the 

chamber with fluid or 

deflated by allowing the 

fluid to leave in ordinary 

use

6. The Parties now stipulate that, given the Court’s construction of the term “means for 

injecting an inflation material into said cuff to inflate it” as set forth in the Court’s Claim 

Construction Order (Dkt. No. 92) as well as the statement at page 7 of the cuff 17 having to be 

“inflated and deflated by means of a valve, indicated generally at 37 in FIGS 4a and 4b, which is 

integral with inflation port 39 of cuff 17” in the ‘575 Patent, Samuels cannot prove infringement of 

claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13 of the ’575 patent by the Defendants.

7. The Parties now stipulate that, given the Court’s construction of the term “means for 

inflating the cuff with inflation material” as set forth in the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 

No. 92) as well as the statement at page 7 of the cuff 17 having to be “inflated and deflated by means 

of a valve, indicated generally at 37 in FIGS 4a and 4b, which is integral with inflation port 39 of 

cuff 17” in the ‘575 Patent Samuels cannot prove infringement of claims 14-17, 19-21, and 23-24 of 

the ’575 patent by the Defendants.

8. The Parties further stipulate that, given the Court’s construction of the term “a valve 

integral with the inflatable cuff for permitting entry of the inflation material from the means for 

injecting and thereafter sealing said cuff to prevent deflation” as set forth in the Court’s Claim 

Construction Order (Dkt. No. 92), Samuels cannot prove infringement of claims 1-7, 9-11 and 13 of 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 98 Filed 12/17/15 Page 5 of 10
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL 

JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘575

PATENT

6 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02261-EMC

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 ’575 patent by the Defendants.

9. The Parties further stipulate that, given the Court’s construction of the term “a valve 

integral with the inflatable cuff for permitting entry of the inflation material from the means for 

inflating and thereafter sealing said cuff to prevent deflation” as set forth in the Court’s Claim 

Construction Order (Dkt. No. 92), Samuels cannot prove infringement of claims 14-17, 19-21, and 

23-24 of the ’575 patent by the Defendants.

10 The Parties further stipulate that, given the Court’s construction of the term “a valve”

as set forth in the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 92), Samuels cannot prove 

infringement of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24 of the ’575 patent by the Defendants.

11. The Parties further stipulate that, given the Court’s construction of the term “for 

permitting entry of the inflation material from the means for injecting and thereafter sealing said cuff 

to prevent deflation” as set forth in the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 92), Samuels 

cannot prove infringement of claims 1-7, 9-11 and 13 of the ’575 patent by the Defendants.

12. The Parties further stipulate that, given the Court’s construction of the term “for 

permitting entry of the inflation material from the means for inflating and thereafter sealing said cuff 

to prevent deflation” as set forth in the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 92), Samuels 

cannot prove infringement of claims 14-17, 19-21, and 23-24 of the ’575 patent by the Defendants.

13. The Parties further stipulate that, given the Court’s construction of the term 

“inflatable and deflatable cuff of generally hollow cylindrical continuation [sic configuration]” as set 

forth in the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 92), including that “an ‘inflatable cuff’ must 

mean that the entire structure is inflated’ as set forth in footnote 9 of Dkt. No. 92, Samuels cannot 

prove infringement of claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13 of the ’575 patent by the Defendants.

14. The Parties further stipulate that the Court enter judgment of non-infringement as to 

the ’575 patent to conserve judicial resources and to avoid the time and expense of further discovery 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 98 Filed 12/17/15 Page 6 of 10
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL 

JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘575

PATENT

7 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02261-EMC

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

and motion practice related to the ’575 patent. Plaintiff is not asserting any other claims of the ‘575 

patent other than claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 23-24. Upon entry of such judgment, Samuels 

intends to appeal the Court’s forthcoming entry of judgment of non-infringement based on this 

stipulation.

15. The Parties further stipulate that Rule 54(b) authorizes a district court to “direct entry 

of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims ... if the court expressly determines 

that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In view of the Court’s claim 

construction, as described above, and because the non-infringement issue is separable from the 

remaining counterclaims, in the interest of sound judicial administration, there is no just reason for 

delaying the entry of final judgment of non-infringement as to the ‘575 patent, and final judgment of 

non-infringement, subject to the Court’s approval, is hereby entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b).

16. As to TriVascular’s Second through Fifth Counterclaims, the Parties further stipulate 

that the counterclaims, subject to the Court’s approval, are hereby stayed pending Samuels’s appeal 

of the judgment of non-infringement as to the ‘575 patent. Defendants are preserving their rights 

and by entering into this stipulation Defendants do not waive the right to assert non-infringement 

under any claim limitations or claim constructions if the case is remanded. The stay shall be lifted 

after the appellate court’s issuance of the mandate regarding Samuels’s appeal of the Court’s 

judgment, or if Samuels later chooses to abandon an appeal, the stay shall be lifted after Samuels 

provides notice that he is abandoning the appeal. 

17. The Parties further stipulate that in order to promote judicial efficiency and to 

conserve litigation costs, the deadlines for the Bill of Costs and Motion for Fees (including Motion 

for Fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285) concerning the non-infringement judgment that is the subject 

of this Stipulation be delayed until 21 days after the appellate court’s issuance of the mandate 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 98 Filed 12/17/15 Page 7 of 10
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL 

JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘575

PATENT

8 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02261-EMC

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

regarding Samuels’s appeal of the Court’s judgment, or if Samuels later chooses to abandon an 

appeal, the deadlines be delayed until 21 days after Samuels provides notice that he is abandoning 

the appeal.

IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED:

DATED: December 15, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marc H. Cohen

Marc H. Cohen

Lien K. Dang

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

3330 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Telephone: (650) 859-7000

Facsimile: (650) 859-7500

marc.cohen@kirkland.com

lien.dang@kirkland.com

Attorneys for Defendants

TriVascular, Inc., Michael A. Chobotov, 

Robert G. Whirley, and Joseph W. 

Humphrey

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James D. Petruzzi___

James D. Petruzzi (SBN 115175)

THE PETRUZZI LAW FIRM

4900 Woodway, Suite 745

Houston, TX 77056

Telephone: (713) 840-9993

Facsimile: (713) 877-9100

jdpetruzzi@gmail.com

Martin J. Siegel

700 Louisiana, Suite 2300

Houston, TX 77002

Telephone: (713) 226-8566

Martin@Siegelfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DR. SHAUN L.W. SAMUELS

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING

I, James D. Petruzzi, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to 

file this Joint Stipulation. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Marc H. 

Cohen of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP has concurred in this filing.

/s/ James D. Petruzzi___

James D. Petruzzi (SBN 115175)

THE PETRUZZI LAW FIRM

4900 Woodway, Suite 745

Houston, TX 77056

Telephone: (713) 840-9993

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 98 Filed 12/17/15 Page 8 of 10
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AND FINAL 

JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘575

PATENT

9 CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02261-EMC

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

Facsimile: (713) 877-9100

jdpetruzzi@gmail.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DR. SHAUN L.W. SAMUELS

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___________ _________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

The Clerk of the Court 

is directed to close this 

case. 

12/17/15

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 98 Filed 12/17/15 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 15, 2015 that a copy of the foregoing document is being 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California by using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to all counsel of 

record.

Dated: December 15, 2015 /s/ James D. Petruzzi___

James D. Petruzzi (SBN 115175)

THE PETRUZZI LAW FIRM

4900 Woodway, Suite 745

Houston, TX 77056

Telephone: (713) 840-9993

Facsimile: (713) 877-9100

jdpetruzzi@gmail.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DR. SHAUN L.W. SAMUELS

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 98 Filed 12/17/15 Page 10 of 10