Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02261/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02261-11/pdf.json

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

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHAUN L.W. SAMUELS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRIVASCULAR CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13-cv-02261-EMC 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER 

Docket Nos. 81-82, 84 

Plaintiff Shaun L.W. Samuels is the owner of the ‘575 patent which concerns an inflatable 

stent. Dr. Samuels has accused Defendant TriVascular Corporation and several individuals 

affiliated with the company of patent infringement (collectively, “TriVascular”). Currently 

pending before the Court are the parties’ competing briefs regarding claim construction of the ‘575 

patent. 

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

As noted above, the ‘575 patent concerns an inflatable stent. For the most part, a 

representative claim from the patent is claim 1. Claim 1 reads as follows: 

1. An inflatable intraluminal stent adapted to be secured to the 

interior of a tubular structure within the human body comprising: 

a) an inflatable and deflatable cuff of generally hollow 

cylindrical continuation having a collapsible lumen, an inner 

surface, an inlet, an outlet and a friction enhancing outer surface, 

said friction-enhancing outer surface featuring inflatable 

protrusion(s) including at least one circumferential ridge 

disposed about the inflatable cuff, said friction-enhancing outer 

surface engaging the interior of the tubular structure without 

penetration to prevent the cuff from moving in a longitudinal 

direction with respect to the tubular structure wen said cuff is in a 

fully inflated condition; 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 21
2 

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 

b) means for injecting an inflation material into said cuff to 

inflate it; and 

c) 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. 

‘575 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). Terms to be construed include those bolded above. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Legal Standard 

Claim construction is a question of law to be determined by the Court. See Markman v. 

Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“hold[ing] that in a case tried to a 

jury, the court has the power and obligation to construe as a matter of law the meaning of language 

used in the patent claim”). “The purpose of claim construction is to ‘determin[e] the meaning and 

scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed.’” O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation 

Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

 

Words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary 

meaning, which is the meaning a term would have to a person of 

ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the intrinsic record at the 

time of the invention. “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of 

claim language . . . may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and 

claim construction in such cases involves little more than the 

application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly 

understood words.” However, in many cases, the meaning of a 

claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is not readily 

apparent. 

Id. 

Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of 

skill in the art is often not immediately apparent, and because 

patentees frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court looks to 

“those sources available to the public that show what a person of 

skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to 

mean.” Those sources include “the words of the claims themselves, 

the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and 

extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the 

meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” 

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As a general matter, extrinsic 

evidence such as dictionaries and expert testimony is considered less reliable than intrinsic 

evidence (i.e., the patent and its prosecution history). See id. at 1317-19 (noting that “extrinsic 

evidence may be useful to the court, but it is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 21
3 

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 

claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence”). 

Generally, embodiments from the specification should not be imported into the claims as 

limitations. See Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We do 

not read limitations from the specification into claims.”). “There are only two exceptions to this 

general rule: (1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or (2) 

when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during 

prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

B. “means for injecting an inflation material into said cuff to inflate it” and “means for 

inflating the cuff with inflation material” 

Dr. Samuels’s Proposed 

Construction 

TriVascular’s Proposed 

Construction 

Court’s Construction 

“means for injecting an inflation material into said cuff to inflate it” 

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). 

Function: The same. 

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. 

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), 

inflation tubing (61, 115), and 

a valve. 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 21
4 

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 

“means for inflating the cuff with inflation material” 

Function: The function is 

inflating the cuff 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 

(61, 115). 

Function: The same. 

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 with the inflation 

material. 

Function: The function is 

inflating the cuff with inflation 

material.

Structure: The corresponding 

structure is an inflation 

syringe of the kind shown in 

Figs. 1 and 9a-9c (71, 117), 

inflation tubing (61, 115), and 

a valve. 

The first term (“means for injecting an inflation material into said cuff to inflate it”) can be 

found in, e.g., claim 1(b). The second term (“means for inflating the cuff with inflation material”) 

can be found in, e.g., claim in 14(c). 

Both parties agree that the two terms should be considered together. Both parties also 

agree that the above terms are means-plus-function limitations. Means-plus-function limitations 

were, at the time, governed by paragraph 6 of 35 U.S.C. § 112, which provided as follows: 

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a 

means or step for performing a specified function without the recital 

of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall 

be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts 

described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 4 of 21
5 

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 

35 U.S.C. § 112 (1999). 

In enacting this provision, Congress struck a balance in allowing 

patentees to express a claim limitation by reciting a function to be 

performed rather than by reciting structure for performing that 

function, while placing specific constraints on how such a limitation 

is to be construed, namely, by restricting the scope of coverage to 

only the structure, materials, or acts described in the specification as 

corresponding to the claimed function and equivalents thereof. 

Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). 

Here, the parties do not have a dispute as to what the claimed functions of the means-plusfunction elements are – i.e., injecting an inflation material into the cuff to inflate it and inflating 

the cuff with inflation material. (As indicated by the above, the functions for the two elements are 

essentially the same.) Rather, the parties dispute what the corresponding structure for each 

function is. Dr. Samuels argues that, in each case, the structure that performs the function is 

simply a syringe and inflation tubing. In response, TriVascular contends that the structure is not 

just a syringe and inflation tubing but also includes a valve.1

In his papers, Dr. Samuels contends that a valve should not be part of the structure because 

there is a different claim element (e.g., claim 1(c) instead of claim 1(b)) that addresses a valve. 

See Op. Br. at 9. But as TriVascular argues in its papers, one structure can perform multiple 

functions, not just one – i.e., nothing bars a valve from performing the function of “permitting 

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

prevent deflation” (claim 1(c)) and also performing the function of inflating the cuff with inflation 

material (claim 1(b)). This makes practical sense. In addition, TriVascular has support for its 

position from Intellectual Property Development, Inc. v. UA-Columbia Cablevision of 

Westchester, Inc., 336 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (hereinafter IPD). 

In IPD, one element in the claim at issue was “‘light beam demodulation means at said 

reception position responsive to said photo-sensitive detector means to convert said light beam 

 1

 TriVascular’s construction also refers to, e.g., the mating end of inflation tubing, leaflets, 

an inflation port, and inflation material, see Resp. Br. at 5, but at the core of its argument is the 

valve. 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 5 of 21
6 

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 

into demodulated high frequency carrier radio wave signals modulated with video broadcast 

signals.’” Id. at 1312 (emphasis added). According to the district court, 

since the claim language requires that the “photo-sensitive detector 

means” and the “light beam demodulation means” be “responsive 

to” each other, they could not, as urged by [the plaintiff], be 

contained in the same structure, i.e., the photo-sensitive detector. 

Otherwise, according to the court, the words ‘responsive to’ would 

be read out of the claim. 

Id. at 1318. The Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court, stating as follows: “Contrary to 

[the defendant’s] argument, we see no reason why, as a matter of law, one claim limitation may 

not be responsive to another merely because they are located in the same physical structure.” Id.

at 1320 n.9. At least one court has expressly cited IPD for the proposition that “multiple claimed 

functions can share the same corresponding structure or structures.” Morvil Tech. v. Medtronic 

Ablation Frontiers, No. 10-CV-2088 BEN (BGS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113029, at *51 (S.D. 

Cal. Aug. 10, 2012). 

The instant case, of course, is somewhat different from IPD. In IPD, the Federal Circuit 

was confronted with two means-plus-function elements (the light beam demodulation means and 

the photo-sensitive detector means), and that is not the case here. But the underlying point of IPD

still has application in the case at bar – i.e., a valve is not automatically foreclosed from being 

structure for purposes of claim 1(b) just because it also shows up in claim 1(c). 

Dr. Samuels protests, however, that just because a valve is part of the inflating process 

does not mean that the valve does the inflating itself; what does the actual inflating is the syringe 

and inflation tubing. Admittedly, Dr. Samuels has some support for his position from the ‘575 

specification, which states, inter alia, as follows: “Referring back to FIG. 1, cuff 17 is inflated by 

way of an inflation syringe 71 with an inflation material 73.” ‘575 patent, col. 4:33-34. 

But, notably, other parts of the ‘575 specification indicate that a valve is not just a part of 

the inflation process; rather, it is a necessary element to accomplish the inflation. Compare 

Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added) (noting 

that a “‘court may not import . . . structural limitations from the written description that are 

unnecessary to perform the claimed function’”) (emphasis added); see also Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 6 of 21
7 

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 

Coating Machinery Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that “the court 

improperly restricted ‘air circulation means’ limitation to structure that was disclosed in the 

preferred embodiment, but was not necessary to perform the recited function of circulating air”). 

 “The cuff 17 is 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.” ‘575 patent, col. 4:8-

10 (emphasis added). 

 “As shown in FIG. 4a, when inflation tubing 61 is in an engaged configuration with valve

37, mating end 63 separates opposing leaflets 51 and 53 so that cuff 17 may be inflated or 

deflated.” ‘575 patent, col. 4:17-20 (emphasis added). 

That a valve is a necessary element to accomplish inflation is underscored by the fact that 

the inflation material can be “a saline-based fluid or a material that contains a photo-activated or 

heat-activated hardening agent or any hardening agent that hardens over time.” ‘575 patent, col. 

4:35-37. In either case, the valve is necessary to accomplish inflation (and not just prevent 

deflation after inflation is achieved, see Part II.D, infra) or the material will, in effect “leak out.” 

This is true even where the material contains a hardening agent because hardening is a process that 

takes at least some time. 

In response, Dr. Samuels suggests that a valve is not necessary based on the language of 

claims 9 and 19. Claim 9 covers “[t]he inflatable intraluminal stent of claim 1 wherein the valve is 

of a breakaway design to permit separation from the means for injecting.” ‘575 patent, claim 9 

(emphasis added). Claim 19 covers “[t]he apparatus of claim 14 wherein the valve is of a 

breakaway design to permit separation from the means for inflating.” ‘575 patent, claim 19 

(emphasis added); see also ‘575 patent, claim 13 (addressing “[t]he inflatable intraluminal stent of 

claim 1 wherein the means for injecting an inflation material into said inflatable cuff to inflate it 

includes an inflation syringe and inflation tubing”). But TriVascular correctly notes that the 

Federal Circuit has “long held that a patentee cannot rely on claim differentiation to broaden a 

means-plus-function limitation beyond those structures specifically disclosed in the specification.” 

Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d 549, 563 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Nomos Corp. v. 

BrainLAB USA, Inc., 357 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “our interpretation of the 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 7 of 21
8 

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 

corresponding structure comes from the written description, not from [a] dependent claim”; adding 

that “claim differentiation, which is a ‘guide, not a rigid rule,’ does not override the requirements 

of § 112, ¶ 6 when the ‘claim will bear only one interpretation’”; and thus concluding that the 

means for “generating at least one ultrasound image” includes both an ultrasound probe and a 

fixation device, not just the probe alone). 

Accordingly, the corresponding structure for the two means-plus-function limitations 

identified above is an inflation syringe of the kind shown in Figs. 1 and 9a-9c (71, 117), inflation 

tubing (61, 115), and a valve. Section 112 ¶ 6, of course, also provides coverage for equivalents 

thereof. 

C. “inflatable protrusion(s) including at least one circumferential ridge disposed about the 

inflatable cuff” 

Dr. Samuels’s Proposed 

Construction

TriVascular’s Proposed 

Construction

Court’s Construction

A portion or portions of the 

outer surface of the cuff that 

protrude outward of the cuff 

upon inflation. 

A portion or portions of the 

outer surface of the inflatable 

cuff that are themselves 

inflatable by being filled with 

fluid that protrude outward 

from the flat portions of the 

outer surface of the inflated 

cuff, including at least one 

ridge that goes around the 

cuff. 

A portion or portions of the 

outer surface of the inflatable 

cuff that protrude outward of 

the cuff and that are 

themselves inflatable, i.e., 

expandable by being filled 

with fluid, including at least 

one ridge that goes around the 

cuff. 

The term can be found in, e.g., claim 1(a). 

As argued by TriVascular, the main dispute regarding the term seems to be whether the 

protrusions, which are themselves inflatable, must be inflatable by being filled with fluid. In his 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 8 of 21
9 

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 

reply brief, Dr. Samuels failed to address this point. See Reply at 6. That being the case, the 

Court adopts the limitation advocated for by TriVascular (i.e., as unopposed). 

Moreover, there is a substantive basis supporting the “fluid” limitation. Although the bulk 

of the ‘575 patent, including the specification, does not make any mention of the protrusions being 

filled with fluid, the specification does state: “As illustrated in FIG. 2, circumferential ridges 25

are in fluid communication with the inflatable chamber 27 of cuff 17.” ‘575 patent, col. 3:54-56. 

Cf. ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., 558 F.3d 1368, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (agreeing with 

district court’s construction of “spike” to mean “‘an elongated structure having a pointed tip for 

piercing the seal, which tip may be sharp or slightly rounded’” because it is “appropriate ‘to rely 

heavily on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims’” and “the 

specification ‘repeatedly and uniformly describes the spike as appointed instrument for the 

purpose of piercing a seal inside the valve’”). 2

Furthermore, as TriVascular argues, the “fluid” limitation is supported based on what Dr. 

Samuels told the PTAB during the inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. In this regard, 

TriVascular makes a prosecution disclaimer-type argument. That doctrine “‘preclud[es] patentees 

from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution.’” 

TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph, 790 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2015). While the doctrine does not apply 

 

2

 Notably, the ICU court acknowledged that “we should not import limitations from the 

specification ino the claims.” ICU, 558 F.3d at 1375. The court added, however, that 

“the line between construing terms and importing limitations can be 

discerned with reasonable certainty and predictability if the court’s 

focus remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the 

art would understand the claim terms.” Indeed, the court should 

focus on how such a person would understand the claim term “after 

reading the entire patent.” The specification never suggests that the 

spike can be anything other than pointed. As the district court 

noted, (1) each figure depicts the spike as elongated and pointed; (2) 

in each figure depicting an activated valve, the spike pierces the 

seal; and (3) the patents neither describe piercing as optional nor 

describe any non-piercing item as a spike. Moreover, ICU offers no 

support from any intrinsic or extrinsic source in support of its claim 

that the ordinary meaning of spike would include a non-pointed 

structure such as a tube or a straw. 

Id. (emphasis added). 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 9 of 21
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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

“‘where the alleged disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous,’” it “‘attaches and narrows the 

ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender’” where “‘the patentee 

has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent.’”3 Id. 

Before the PTAB, Dr. Samuels argued that the protrusions must be inflatable and that they 

“are unarguably identified by the circumferential ridges, such as ridges 25 in one embodiment 

clearly shown in Figure 2 . . . and are themselves in fluid communication with the inflatable 

chamber 27 of cuff 17.” Cohen Decl., Ex. 3 (Resp. at 5-6). He also argued that “the only 

supporting disclosure in the ‘575 patent is for a ridge which is itself part of the inflatable 

protrusion and contains fluid itself[;] [t]here simply is no support for the ridge being solid.” 

Cohen Decl., Ex. 3 (Resp. at 7). Ultimately, the PTAB adopted a construction in favor of Dr. 

Samuels, “determ[ing] that ‘inflatable protrusions’ are protrusions that are themselves inflatable, 

i.e., expandable by being filled with fluid,” as contended by Dr. Samuels. Cohen Decl., Ex. 4 

(PTAB Decision at 7, 10). Thus, based on the record, there is support for TriVascular’s argument 

that prosecution disclaimer is applicable here. 

Accordingly, the Court construes the above-identified term as “a portion or portions of the 

outer surface of the inflatable cuff that protrude outward of the cuff and that are themselves 

inflatable, i.e., expandable by being filled with fluid, including at least one ridge that goes around 

the cuff.” 

 3

 At least two judges in this District have noted that prosecution disclaimer has viability in 

IPR proceedings, even though an IPR is technically an adjudicative proceeding rather than an 

examination. See, e.g., Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. C013094513, 

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139066, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2014) (Whyte, J.) (“The IPR 

proceedings will also add to the ‘536 Patent’s prosecution history. Prosecution history is an 

important part of the intrinsic record relevant to claim construction. Statements made by 

Evolutionary Intelligence during the IPR could disclaim claim scope, aid the court in 

understanding the meaning of the terms, or otherwise affect the interpretation of key terms.”); 

Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc., No. C-13-1176 EMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65813, at *14-

15 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2014) (“Under Federal Circuit law, comments made by a patent holder 

during inter partes reexamination proceedings can limit claim scope. The same should be true 

now that inter partes review, rather than inter partes reexamination, is in effect.”). And even if 

prosecution disclaimer is not an exact fit because an IPR is an adjudicative proceeding, it is 

analogous to judicial estoppel. See Abbott Labs. v. Church & Dwight Co., No. 07 C 3428, 2008 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103635, at *25 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2008) (“not[ing] that the doctrine of 

prosecution disclaimer is arguably analogous to the concept of judicial estoppel, which applies 

only if the party to be estopped was successful in the prior proceeding”). 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 10 of 21
11 

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 

D. “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” 

Dr. Samuels’s Proposed 

Construction

TriVascular’s Proposed 

Construction

Court’s Construction

“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” 

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, or one of the 

cuffs] that has a movable part 

(such as leaflets) that open 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. 

A valve, integral with the 

inflatable cuff, that has a 

movable part or parts (such as 

leaflets) that open to permit 

entry of the inflation material 

and thereafter close to seal the 

cuff to prevent deflation. 

“a valve” 

Any structure that affects fluid 

flow. 

A device built-in to the [cuff, 

inflation port, or one of the 

cuffs] that has a movable part 

(such as leaflets) that open to 

permit entry of the inflation 

material and thereafter closes 

to seal the cuff to prevent 

deflation. This construction 

See above. 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 11 of 21
12 

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 

does not cover inflation tubing 

inserted into an inflation port 

with an interference fit. 

“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. 

A device built-in to the [cuff, 

inflation port, or one of the 

cuffs] that has a movable part 

(such as leaflets) that open 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. 

See above. 

The terms can be found in, e.g., claim 1(c). 

As a preliminary matter, the Court takes note that, according to TriVascular, the phrase “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” (see, e.g., claim 1(c)) should be 

construed in its entirety. While Dr. Samuels has provided a construction for the entirety of the 

phrase, he also asserts that the Court should really just construe parts of that phase separately, 

namely (1) “a valve” and (2) “for permitting entry of the inflation material from the means for 

injecting and thereafter sealing said cuff to prevent deflation.” See Op. Br. at 16 (arguing that 

“Trivascular has impermissibly combined several terms and characterized them as one term”). 

The Court agrees with TriVascular that it makes more sense to construe the phrase in its entirety 

rather than in isolated portions, especially given the particular disputes between the parties 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 12 of 21
13 

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 

regarding the terms in the context of the entire phrase. 

In evaluating the phrase “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,” the Court begins by noting that there is some ambiguity. More specifically, is the valve 

at issue one that (1) permits entry of the inflation material and that (2) actually seals the cuff 

itself?4 Or is the valve at issue one that (1) permits entry of the inflation material and that (2) 

permits sealing of the cuff (but does not do the actual sealing itself)?5 The grammatical structure 

of the claim language better supports the first interpretation – i.e., the valve permits entry and 

actually seals the cuff itself. Notably, there is parallel construction between the words 

“permitting” and “sealing.” Compare ‘851 patent, claim 6(b)6 (claiming “[a]n apparatus for 

affixing an endoluminal device to the walls of tubular structures with in the body comprising 

[inter alia] a valve integral with said cuff to permit inflation and deflation”). Moreover, at the 

claim construction hearing, Dr. Samuels never argued in favor of the second interpretation; 

instead, he agreed that claim 1(c) requires that the valve both permit entry and do the sealing itself. 

With this understanding, the main question becomes whether a valve that permits entry and 

thereafter seals is a valve that (1) has moveable parts that open and close, such as a mitre valve 

(TriVascular’s position), or that (2) can be such a valve but that can also be a valve without 

movable parts, such as a breakaway valve (Dr. Samuels’s position). The Court concludes that Dr. 

Samuels’s position is not persuasive. 

First, it is notable that the phrase states the valve permits entry and “thereafter seal[s] . . . 

to prevent deflation.” ‘575 patent, claim 1(c) (emphasis added). The use of the word “thereafter” 

is important. It indicates that, after inflation, the valve seals to prevent deflation. A breakaway 

valve may seal and prevent deflation during the inflation process (i.e., while the inflation tubing is 

 4

 In other words, does the word “permitting” modify only the word “entry” and not the 

word “sealing”? 

5

 In other words, does the word “permitting” modify both the word “entry” and the word 

“sealing”? 

6

 The ‘851 patent is another patent owned by Dr. Samuels.

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 13 of 21
14 

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 

inserted), as Dr. Samuels argued at the hearing, but during and after are not the same thing. With 

a breakaway valve, after inflation, the inflation tubing is removed, see ‘575 patent, col. 4:24-27 

(stating that, “[r]eferring to FIG. 4b, once cuff 17 has been inflated (or deflated) to the desired 

level, a sharp tug on inflating tubing 61 in a direction away from inflation port 39 causes 

circumferential notch 65 [part of the inflation tubing] and circumferential rim 55 [part of the 

breakaway valve] to disengage”), and there is nothing in the ‘575 patent to indicate that the 

breakaway valve itself seals, as opposed to, e.g., a hardening agent in the inflation material. See

‘575 patent, col. 4:34-43 (“The inflation material could be a saline-based fluid or a material that 

contains a photo-activated or heat-activated hardening agent or any hardening agent that hardens 

over time. . . . After cuff 17 has been installed and inflated, the material 73 hardens over time to 

permanently affix stent 5 within the tubular structure of the body via circumferential ridges.”). 

Second, although it is possible for the inflation material to seal itself allowing the 

breakaway valve to be removed, the ‘575 specification clearly contemplates that the inflation 

material can be a fluid without any hardening agent. See ‘575 patent, col. 4:34-37 (“The inflation 

material could be a saline-based fluid or a material that contains a photo-activated or heatactivated hardening agent or any hardening agent that hardens over time.”) (emphasis added). 

That being the case, claim 1 of the ‘575 patent requires a valve that permits entry and thereafter 

seals either with or without the use of any hardening agent in the inflation material. Indeed, this is 

underscored by dependent claim 7 which requires inflation material with a hardening agent. See 

‘575 patent, claim 7 (covering “[t]he inflatable intraluminal stent of claim 1 wherein the inflation 

material includes a hardening agent”). Dr. Samuels has failed to explain how a breakaway valve 

could do the sealing (after inflation is completed) in a case where the fluid (inflation material) 

does not contain any hardening agent without, e.g., a mitre valve. While, at the hearing, Dr. 

Samuels asserted that there could be some other kind of valve without movable parts that could do 

sealing, even without any hardening agent – e.g., if the valve had a physical structure with a 

decreasing orifice size, such that, with the right pressure, inflation material could be forced in but 

would not thereafter “leak out” – he failed to offer any evidence showing that this was in fact 

possible. Furthermore, nothing in the patent specifications suggests such a valve. See note 2, 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 14 of 21
15 

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 

supra. 

Third, as TriVascular points out, in multiple places in the specification, there are only 

references to a valve that seals being a valve that closes (such as a mitre valve) – which would 

require movable parts associated with the valve. See, e.g., ‘575 patent, col. 4:29-32 (stating that, 

“[u]pon withdrawal of the mating end 63 of inflation tubing 61, . . . opposing leaflets 51 and 53 of 

mitre valve 45 close to seal the inflated cuff 17”); ‘575 patent, col. 6:26-29 (stating that, “[a]s the 

catheter is pulled away, the breakaway valve within port 123 releases inflation tubing 115 and the 

mitre valve [which has leaflets that open and close] seals port 123 in a manner similar to the one 

illustrated in FIG. 4b”); see also note 2, supra. This is consistent with the position that Dr. 

Samuels took before the PTAB in the IPR proceeding. See, e.g., Cohen Decl., Ex. 1 (Prelim. 

Resp. at 2) (stating that “[s]tent 5 also includes a means for injecting or inflating with an inflation 

material and a valve 45 [i.e., a mitre valve7] for permitting entry of the inflation material into cuff 

17 and thereafter sealing cuff 17 to prevent deflation”); Cohen Decl., Ex. 3 (Resp. at 4) (stating 

that “[s]tent 5 also includes a valve 45 [i.e., a mitre valve] for permitting entry of the inflation 

material into cuff 17, allowing deflation, and finally sealing cuff 17 to prevent deflation”). 

Finally, dependent claims 8 and 9 are not sufficient to establish that a valve that seals after 

inflation can be one without movable parts. For example, claim 8 covers “[t]he inflatable 

intraluminal stent of claim 1 wherein the valve is a mitre valve.” ‘575 patent, claim 8. But simply 

because a mitre valve is called out in claim 8 does not thereby mean that a breakaway valve (or 

other valve without movable parts) is a valve that seals thereafter, as required in claim 1. A mitre 

valve is one specific kind of valve with movable parts; Dr. Samuels has not demonstrated that 

there are not others. See also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (noting that “the presence of a dependent 

claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is 

not present in the independent claim”). Claim 9 covers “[t]he inflatable intraluminal stent of claim 

1 wherein the valve is of a breakaway design to permit separation from the means for injecting.” 

‘575 patent, claim 9. But claim 9 need not be interpreted to mean that a breakaway valve is 

 7 See ‘575 patent, col. 4:12-14 (stating that “[m]itre valve 45 features opposing leaflets 51

and 53 which are constructed of a non-elastomeric, biologically inert material”). 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 15 of 21
16 

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 

therefore a valve that seals after inflation, as required by claim 1. It does not preclude a 

breakaway valve in addition to, e.g., a mitre valve as shown in the drawings. In other words, 

claim 9 can be interpreted to mean that the valve that actually seals in claim 1 (such as a mitre 

valve) is given an additional feature – i.e., a breakaway design. In fact, that interpretation makes 

more sense given the language in claim 9 that the breakaway design’s purpose is “to permit 

separation from the means for injecting,” and therefore not to seal. 

Accordingly, the Court construes the phrase “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 follows: “a valve, integral with the inflatable cuff, that has a movable 

part or parts (such as leaflets) that open to permit entry of the inflation material and thereafter 

close to seal the cuff to prevent deflation.” The Court need not add limitations beyond that, as 

suggested by TriVascular, as a valve involving inflation tubing inserted into an inflation port with 

an interference fit does not have a movable part or parts. Likewise, the Court need not add 

language regarding capability, as proposed by Dr. Samuels, because it is confusing and 

unnecessary given the construction above. 

E. “inflatable and deflatable cuff of generally hollow cylindrical continuation [sic 

configuration]”8

Dr. Samuels’s Proposed 

Construction

TriVascular’s Proposed 

Construction

Court’s Construction

Cuff of generally hollow 

configuration. 

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 

A cuff, of generally hollow 

configuration, that has an 

inner surface and an outer 

surface and an inflatable and 

deflatable chamber in between 

the surfaces. 

 8

 The Court GRANTS TriVascular’s administrative motion to file notice of supplemental 

citation. See Docket No. 90. 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 16 of 21
17 

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 

the fluid to leave in ordinary 

use. 

This term can be found in, e.g., claim 1(a). 

As a preliminary matter, the Court takes note that Dr. Samuels has asked for construction 

of a slightly narrower term – i.e., “cuff of generally hollow cylindrical continuation [sic 

configuration].” However, it is proper to construe the broader term, as advocated by TriVascular, 

particularly given Dr. Samuel’s objection to TriVascular’s proffered construction. See, e.g., Reply 

at 12 (arguing that “[t]here is no support for adding the additional language of an inflatable 

chamber, nor is it needed”). 

The crux of the dispute here (which was not fully fleshed out until the hearing) is whether 

a cuff has an inflatable chamber between the cuff’s inner surface and outer surface. See, e.g., ‘575 

patent, Fig. 2 (inflatable chamber at 27); ‘575 patent, col. 3:54-56 (“As illustrated in FIG. 2, 

circumferential ridges 25 are in fluid communication with the inflatable chamber 27 of cuff 17.”). 

TriVascular argues that a cuff does; Dr. Samuels argues that a cuff can have an inflatable chamber 

but such is not required; that is, it is permissible to have only the inflatable protrusion(s) inflated. 

Dr. Samuels’s position is without merit. The cuff is expressly described as “inflatable and 

deflatable” in the term. To be inflatable, there must be a chamber within the cuff that can be filled 

with inflation material. If the ‘575 patent was intended to cover only an expandable cuff, then Dr. 

Samuels could easily have used the term “expandable” or a word akin thereto. Instead, he chose 

the word “inflatable,” a word that is also used in the patent term “inflatable protrusions.” Dr. 

Samuels has failed to explain why “inflatable” should have one meaning when used in conjunction 

with the cuff and a different meaning when used in conjunction with the protrusions.9

 9

 In a supplemental brief, Dr. Samuels argued that “inflatable cuff” may still refer to a cuff 

with only the inflatable protrusion(s) inflated because the inflatable protrusion(s) is/are part of the 

cuff. See Docket No. 91 (Dr. Samuels’s Supp. Br. at 2) (arguing that “the inflatable cuff of claim 

1 may be inflated by inflation of just the inflatable protrusion(s) which is/are part of the ‘cuff’ as 

claimed”). But this argument is not persuasive because the cuff is the entire structure; thus, an 

“inflatable cuff” must mean that the entire structure is inflated. Notably, nowhere in the 

specification is it suggested that an inflatable cuff can be a cuff with only a portion of it inflated. 

See note 2, supra. Moreover, given that the claim allows for only one circumferential ridge, Dr. 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 17 of 21
18 

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 

At the hearing, Dr. Samuels pointed to independent claims 14 and 23 as supportive of his 

position, see generally Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 

1987) (stating that “[t]here is presumed to be a difference in meaning and scope when different 

words or phrases are used in separate claims” and that, “[t]o the extent that the absence of such 

difference in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous, the doctrine of claim 

differentiation states the presumption that the difference between claims is significant”), but the 

Court is unpersuaded. Admittedly, claim 14 does refer to “a cuff having a collapsible lumen, an 

inner surface and a friction-enhancing outer surface with an inflatable and deflatable chamber 

disposed there between.” ‘575 patent, claim 14. But simply because the cuff, as described in 

claim 14, refers to an inflatable and deflatable chamber, does not mean that the cuff, as described 

in other claims (e.g., claim 1) does not have such a chamber. “The doctrine of claim 

differentiation is at its strongest . . . ‘where the limitation that is sought be “read into” an 

independent claim already appears in a dependent claim.’” InterDigital Communs., LLC v. ITC, 

690 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012). But here, claims 14 and 23 are not dependent claims; they, 

like claim 1, are independent claims. Notably, the Federal Circuit has stated that it has 

been cautious in assessing the force of claim differentiation in 

particular settings, recognizing that patentees often use different 

language to capture the same invention, discounting it where it is 

invoked based on independent claims rather than the relation of an 

independent and dependent claim, and not permitting it to override 

the strong evidence of meaning supplied by the specification. 

Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 2015-1071, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18819, at *16 (Fed. Cir. 

Oct. 29, 2015). The Court also notes that “‘[a] further reason for not applying the doctrine of 

claim differentiation in this case is that the [claims at issue] are not otherwise identical.” Andersen 

Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting that “there are 

numerous other differences varying the scope of the claimed subject matter”). Claim 1, for 

example, is targeted to an “inflatable intraluminal stent” specifically whereas claim 14 is directed 

more broadly to an “apparatus for disposition within the lumen of a tubular structure.” 

 

Samuels’s construction makes little sense because, if only that ridge (and not the cuff) is inflated, 

the cuff would consist of simple ring and not a cylinder. 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 18 of 21
19 

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 

Accordingly, the Court construes the phrase ““inflatable and deflatable cuff of generally 

hollow cylindrical continuation [sic configuration]” as “a cuff, of generally hollow configuration, 

that has an inner surface and an outer surface and an inflatable and deflatable chamber in between 

the surfaces.” The Court declines to provide a specific definition for the term “cuff” (e.g., as a 

band-like structure) as the term is understandable to a lay person. 

F. “affixing the cuff with [sic within] the lumen of the tubular structure without penetration 

of the tubular structure” 

Dr. Samuels’s Proposed 

Construction

TriVascular’s Proposed 

Construction

Court’s Construction

Causing the cuff to resist 

movement within the lumen of 

the tubular structure without 

penetration of the tubular 

structure. 

The cuff is fixedly secured to 

the interior of the tubular 

structure to hold it in place 

without penetration of the 

tubular structure. 

Plain and ordinary meaning. 

This term can be found in, e.g., claim 14(b). 

The Court sees no need to define the claim term, not only because the word “affixing” is 

not a term beyond a lay person’s comprehension but also because there is no real difference 

between the parties’ proposed constructions. This is substantiated by the specification of the 

patent which describes “affixing” in the following contexts: 

 “If the initial placement of the stent within the tubular structure is not optimal, it may be 

deflated, repositioned to the optimal position and reinflated so as to again be affixed to the 

tubular walls via its outer surface.” ‘575 patent, col. 2:39-42. 

 “As shown in FIG. 1, outer surface 23 features a number of inflatable ridges 25 disposed 

about its circumference. While inflatable ridges are shown in the FIGS., any frictionenhancing outer surface, that would secure the inflated stent to the interior wall of a tubular 

structure without penetrating it, could be used.” ‘575 patent, col. 3:33-37. 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 19 of 21
20 

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 

 “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the outer surface 30 of the cuff is made coarse by a combination 

of raised portions 31 and lowered portions 33. These surface features allow the inflated 

stent to grip the interior walls of a tubular structure with a force that is sufficient to prevent 

its migration.” ‘575 patent, col. 3:62-66. 

 “In addition, it may be desirable in some applications to provide the cuff with an outer 

surface that promotes tissue ingrowth. This would allow the stent to become more 

integrated, and thus more firmly affixed, within the tubular structure as time progresses.” 

‘575 patent, col. 4:1-5. 

 “As shown in FIGS. 5c and 6c, stent 89 is inflated so that the size of the lumen of stent 89

approximates the lumen size of the original, unconstructed blood vessel. By doing so, 

constricted portion 83 is compressed between blood vessel wall 85 and stent 89, the latter 

of which is fixed in place by way of protruding ridges 91.” ‘575 patent, col. 4:59-64. 

 “A unique feature of the present invention is its capability of being optimally positioned 

within a tubular structure in the body (in this case, a blood vessel) without causing damage 

to the surrounding tissue. Specifically, after stent 89 has been inflated so that ridges 91 

affix the stent to the tubular walls without penetration, the position of the stent is examined 

fluoroscopically to determine if it is optimal. If not, stent 89 may be deflated, repositioned 

and then reinflated.” ‘575 patent, col. 4:66-5:7. 

 “The stent-graft is secured to the vessel walls via ridges 96 so that blood passes through 

graft 92.” ‘575 patent, col. 5:32-33. 

Dr. Samuels’s position, as articulated during the IPR proceedings, does not indicate 

anything different. See Cohen Decl., Ex. 11 (Clark Decl. ¶¶ 5(a), 8) (referring to the ridges 

“holding the stent in place” and “maintain[ing] a desired position”); Cohen Decl., Ex. 12 (Samuels 

Decl. ¶ 4(b)) (noting that the stent can be “held fixed in a desired location”). 

Moreover, claim 14(b) itself reads in full as follows: “said friction-enhancing outer surface 

featuring inflatable protrusion(s) including at least one circumferential ridge disposed about the 

inflatable cuff and affixing the cuff with the lumen of the tubular structure without penetration of 

the tubular structure when the cuff is fully inflated so that movement of the cuff in a longitudinal 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 20 of 21
21 

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 

direction with respect to the tubular structure is prevented.” ‘575 patent, claim 14(b) (emphasis 

added). The meaning of “affix” is clear, particularly when viewed in the context of the italicized 

language. Given the context of the full claim limitation, there is no need to reiterate the point that 

movement is resisted or that the cuff is held in place. 

G. “said friction-enhancing outer surface engaging the interior of the tubular structure without 

penetration to prevent the cuff from moving” 

Dr. Samuels’s Proposed 

Construction

TriVascular’s Proposed 

Construction

Court’s Construction

Outer surface capable of 

engaging the interior of the 

tubular structure without 

penetration and capable of 

preventing the cuff from 

moving and enhancing 

friction. 

Said friction enhancing outer 

surface gripping the interior of 

the tubular structure with 

sufficient force to fixedly 

secure the cuff to keep/hold it 

in place without penetration of 

the tubular structure. 

Plain and ordinary meaning. 

This term can be found in, e.g., claim 1(a). 

Basically, the dispute here is similar to the one immediately above, and the Court therefore 

rests on plain and ordinary meaning. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the above constructions for the claim terms at 

issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 12, 2015 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD M. CHEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-EMC Document 92 Filed 11/12/15 Page 21 of 21