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

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

STRYKER CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 

STRYKER CORPORATION,

Counterclaimant,

v.

SYNVASIVE CORPORATION,

Counterdefendant.

----oo0oo----

Currently before the court is defendant Stryker

Corporation’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of

two patents held by plaintiff Synvasive Corporation, with

attendant issues of claim construction.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Synvasive is the assignee of U.S. Patents

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

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 24
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 1

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). 

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

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

2

both of which claim 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. 1, 4.) The ‘253 patent

is a continuation of the ‘353 patent; thus, although the claims

in the two patents differ, they share a common specification. 

(Id. at 4.) The ‘353 patent issued on February 8, 2000; the ‘253

patent issued on January 7, 2003. (Compl. ¶¶ 5,7.) Plaintiff

alleges that defendant’s products infringe Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,

and 11 of the ‘353 patent, and Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and

14-18 of the ‘253 patent. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. D 1

(Pl.’s Am. Resp. to Def.’s Interrog. No. 2); see also Pl.’s Opp’n

to Mot. for Summ. J. 6.)

There are three categories of products manufactured by

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

Stryker Parts No. 2018-102S12 and 2108-151S4 (which allegedly

have curved tops); (2) Stryker’s Dual-Cut blades, with “fishtailshaped” teeth that are offset; and (3) Stryker offset-teeth 2

blades. 

A figure from the ‘353 patent is included below; it

depicts one embodiment of the patented blade. 

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 24
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

A. The ‘353 Patent

The only independent claim of the ‘353 patent that

plaintiff alleges defendant’s products infringe is Claim 1. All 

other claims in the patent that are in dispute are dependent upon

Claim 1. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ J. Ex. A at 6.) 

Claim 1 reads in relevant part:

1. A surgical saw blade for use in combination 

with a surgical bone saw, the surgical saw 

blade comprising: 

a) a proximal end configured to couple to a 

surgical bone saw;

b) a distal end having an even number of 

substantially identically shaped teeth for 

cutting bone, each of the plurality of teeth 

ending in a tip distally; and

c) a centrally positioned long axis between 

the proximal end and the distal end;

wherein each of the plurality of 

substantially identically shaped teeth are 

shaped substantially as right triangles 

including a hypotenuse and an angle opposite 

the hypotenuse, wherein each hypotenuse is 

oriented toward the centrally positioned 

long axis, and wherein the tips are arrayed 

on a line perpendicular to the centrally 

positioned long axis. 

(Id. (‘353 patent, 6:48-63).) Claim 3 adds the following

language: “wherein the even number of teeth [of the saw blade]

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 24
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

4

are at least eight.” (Id. (‘353 patent, 7:1-2).) Claim 5 covers

a method of using the blade that is the subject of Claim 1: “A

method of cutting bone comprising the steps of: a) providing a

surgical saw blade according to claim 1; b) coupling the saw

blade to a surgical saw; c) actuating the surgical saw with the

coupled saw blade, and d) cutting a bone.” (Id. (‘353 patent,

7:5-11).) Claim 7 refers to the method in Claim 5 and adds that

the even number of the teeth of the saw “are at least eight

teeth.” (Id. (‘353 patent, 7: 16-18).) Claim 9 refers to the

combination of the surgical bone saw and the bone saw. (Id.

(‘353 patent, 7:22-27, 8:1-14.) Claim 11 references Claim 9 and

adds the same limitation of Claim 3: that there be at least eight

teeth on the bone saw. (Id. (‘353 patent, 8:21-22).) 

B. The ‘253 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 . .

. .” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex B (‘253 patent, 8:36-42).) 

Claim 2 is similar to Claim 1 except that it covers

“[a] surgical saw blade for use in combination with a surgical

bone saw . . . .” (Id. (‘253 patent, 7:3-22).) Claim 6 covers

the combination of the surgical bone saw and a bone saw blade. 

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 4 of 24
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

(Id. (‘253 patent, 7:30-60).) Claim 10 is a method claim that

refers to the saw blade mentioned in Claim 6. (Id. (‘253 patent,

9:10-11).) Claim 4, 8, and 12 modify Claims 2, 6, and 10

respectively by adding the limitation of an even number of teeth. 

(Id. (‘253 patent, 8:26-27, 8:65-66, 9:14-16).) 

Claim 15 is dependent upon Claim 14, and additionally

requires a centrally positioned long axis, teeth that are shaped

substantially as right triangles, and teeth with hypotenuses that

are “oriented at least one of towards and away from the axis.” 

(Id. (‘253 patent, 8:36-42).) Claim 16 modifies Claim 15 by

requiring that the number of teeth be even. (Id. (‘253 patent,

8:43-45).) Claim 17 modifies that further by requiring that all

teeth have a hypotenuse oriented towards the central long axis. 

(Id. (‘253 patent, 8:46-47).) Claim 18 narrows further to

require six identical cutting teeth on each side of the central

axis. (Id. (‘253 patent, 8:48-49).)

At a status conference on October 24, 2005, the court

concluded that rather than hold a separate hearing to construe

the claims of these patents, it would be more effective to

resolve the claim construction issues in the context of a motion

for summary judgment. (Oct. 24, 2005 Status Order.) Defendant

filed this motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on

January 20, 2006. 

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

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 5 of 24
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

6

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

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 substantive law governing a case determines the

materiality of a fact. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. P. Elec.

Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). “A

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 6 of 24
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

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). 

Generally, courts look to three sources for claim

construction: the claims, the specification, and the prosecution

history. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979

(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). 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 303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Brown v. 3M, 265 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). 

Additionally, courts may turn to extrinsic evidence

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 7 of 24
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

concerning “relevant scientific principles, the meaning of

technical terms, and the state of the art.” Innova/Pure Water,

Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116

(Fed. Cir. 2004). Expert testimony may assist the court in

construing claims by providing background about the technology at

issue, “to explain how an invention works,” to conform the

court’s interpretation of the technology to that of a person with

ordinary skill in the art, or to establish that a term has a

singular meaning in the relevant technological field. Phillips,

415 F.3d at 1318 (citing Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard

Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1308-09 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Key Pharms. v.

Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). 

However, evidence extrinsic to the patent is considered less

reliable for the purposes of claim construction than the

information contained in the patent itself. Id. Additionally,

“conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the

definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.” Id. 

B. Claim Construction

Because the ‘253 patent is a continuation of 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

contends that the following features of various surgical saws it

produces prevent the saws from infringing the claims of the

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 8 of 24
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

patents at issue: (1) curved tops, (2) offset teeth, and (3)

fishtail-shaped cutting surfaces. Accordingly, the terms of the

claims to be construed that are common to both patents are:

• Tooth

• A tip

• Shaped substantially as right triangles

• Hypotenuse

With regard to the ‘353 patent, claim construction is necessary

for the following terms:

• A line

• Arrayed on a line

• Each hypotenuse is oriented toward 

The terms of the claims to be construed from the ‘253 patent are: 

• A tangent

• Configured to be placed substantially on a tangent

• Each hypotenuse is oriented at least one of

towards and away from

1. Terms Common To The ‘253 & ‘353 Patents

a. “Tooth”

The parties do not dispute that a “tooth” is the

cutting surface of a blade. (Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J.

22; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 14.) Some claims of the patents

also describe the teeth as “shaped substantially as right

triangles,” but the court construes that term separately below. 

Defendant contends, however, that the specification indicates

that all claims refer to teeth that are triangular because of

three embodiments disclosed in the patents. (‘353 Patent, 3:1-2;

‘253 patent, 3:3-4.) Defendant similarly notes that both patents

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 9 of 24
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

also describe, in their description of preferred embodiments,

teeth as being “formed from two sides, which coalesce to form the

tooth.” (‘353 patent, 4:53-54; ‘253 patent, 4:55-56.) 

The court cannot read a limitation into a claim from

the embodiments in the specification. Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge

Wire Cloth Co., 863 F.2d 855, 865 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“References

to a preferred embodiment, such as those often present in a

specification, are not claim limitations” (citation omitted).) 

Therefore, the court concludes that it is sufficient to say that

a “tooth” is a cutting surface.

b. “A Tip” 

There is no dispute that the term “a tip” is distinct

from the term “tooth,” and that it refers to the top, or distal

end, of the tooth. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 14; Pl.’s Opp’n to

Mot. for Summ. J. 24.) The Federal Circuit has explained that

the indefinite article “a” is amenable to two different

meanings: it can mean “one” or “one or more.” KCJ Corp. v.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

Moreover, the default is to presume that the article “a” refers

to “one or more.” Id. (“Unless the claim is specific as to the

number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular

interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee

evinces a clear intent to so limit the article” (emphasis

added).) 

Defendant argues that because the term “tip” is defined

as “the area of coalescence” where the sides of the tooth come

together, the term “a tip” should be construed to mean a single

tip. However, an area of coalescence does not clearly denote one

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 10 of 24
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 instance, a mountaintop might be considered an 3

“area of coalescence,” but many mountaintops consist of a few

distinct peaks. Similarly, an area of coalescence could

encompass more than one distinct tip, and therefore, this phrase

does not clearly establish the patentee’s intent to restrict the

patent to cover only teeth with a single tip.

11

single tip. This evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the 3

patentee’s clear intent to limit the article “a” to its singular

form. Therefore, the court concludes that the term “a tip”

refers to one or more tips at the distal end of a tooth. 

c. “Shaped Substantially As Right Triangles”

The definition of this claim element appears to be

undisputed. Defendant proffers the following construction:

“shaped as a triangle in which one of the interior angles is

substantially ninety degrees.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. H

(Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1956 (4th ed.

1976)).) Plaintiff does not appear to dispute this construction. 

The use of the term “substantially” suggests that the objects in

question are “approximately” right triangles. 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)). Therefore, the court concludes that the claim

language “shaped substantially as a right triangle” should be

construed as follows: “shaped as a triangle in which one of the

interior angles is approximately ninety degrees.” 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 11 of 24
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 refers to the declaration of Matthew G. 4

Fisher to assist in the construction of this claim; plaintiff

also cites this declaration and other expert declarations with

regard to other claim terms for the conclusory statements that

the definitions provided by plaintiffs are correctly applied to

the claim terms. Although dictionary definitions may assist the

court in claim construction, “conclusory, unsupported assertions

by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to

a court.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. 

12

d. “Hypotenuse”

The meaning of the term “hypotenuse” is not disputed. 

Accordingly, the court concludes that “hypotenuse” means “the

edge of a triangular cutting surface tooth opposite the interior

angle of the triangle that is closest to ninety degrees.” 

e. “Each Hypotenuse Is Oriented Toward”

This phrase has a clear ordinary meaning: each tooth

should have a hypotenuse that is oriented toward the central long

axis, or facing that axis. 

2. Terms From The ‘253 Patent

a. “A Line”

Defendant seeks to construe the phrase “a line” with

the standard geometric definition: a series of points defined by

the intersection of two planes. Plaintiff asks the court to

construe the entire phrase “arrayed on a line,” and proposes this

definition: a mark that is long relative to its width. (Pl.’s

Opp’n 12 (citing Hulse Decl. Ex. D (dictionary definition).)4

Plaintiff’s definition is plainly over-inclusive. Although a

line is a mark that is long relative to its width, other objects

that are not lines are also included in that definition. For

instance, defendant notes that a rectangle is a mark that is long

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 12 of 24
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

Defining “a line” as “a mark that is long relative to 5

its width” could make it possible for plaintiff to claim that a

blade with a curved or offset top infringes its invention–-if the

line is thick enough, one can imagine an infinite number of

configurations of teeth made possible by placing the tips of the

teeth at various points within the “line.”

13

relative to its width. Because this is an instance in which the 5

ordinary meaning of the term is amenable to common-sense

interpretation by judges, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314, this court

will apply defendant’s definition: a line is the intersection of

two planes. 

The term “a” is susceptible to the meaning of “one or

more” lines, as discussed above. However, the patents at issue

clearly evince an intent to restrict the meaning to blade with a

flat top, in which the tips would necessarily be aligned along a

single straight line. In the specification, both patents

distinguish the invention from “prior art cutting blades having

curved cutting heads.” (‘353 Patent, 2:49-50; ‘253 Patent, 2:51-

52.) Because curved lines would also impermissibly encompass the

prior art, the definition of “a line” cannot include curved

lines. Moreover, plaintiff concedes that its claims cover blades

with a flat top. (Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. 10.) 

Accordingly, the court further construes the term “a line” to

mean “a single straight line that is the intersection of two

planes.”

b. “Arrayed On A Line”

Defendant proposes that the court construe the term

“arrayed on a line” as “positioned on a single line.” As the

court has construed the term “a line” above, the only term left

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 13 of 24
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 words “at least one of” are not here construed; 6

plaintiff conceded at oral argument that this phrase is

superfluous.

14

to be construed is “arrayed.” There is nothing to suggest that

“arrayed” has a meaning other than its ordinary meaning, and the

court therefore adopts the proposed construction of “positioned

on a single line.”

c. “A Tangent”

The parties do not dispute that a tangent is simply a

line. (Def.’s Reply 3; Pl.’s Opp’n 16.) Therefore, the court’s

previous construction of a line will also apply to the

construction of the term “a tangent.”

d. “Configured to Be Placed Substantially on a Tangent”

Plaintiff explains that both “arrayed on a line” and

“configured to be placed substantially on a tangent” should be

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

(Pl.’s Opp’n 17.) The parties appear to be in agreement about

this construction (Def.’s Reply 4), so the court will accept this

construction of the terms. 

e. “Each Hypotenuse is Oriented at Least One of Towards

or Away From” 

The ‘253 patent includes claim language stating as

follows: “each hypotenuse is oriented at least one of towards and

away from the centrally positioned long axis.” (‘253 patent,

7:15-18, 44-46.) Plaintiff contends that the court should 6

construe this claim as follows “each hypotenuse may face either

toward or away from the centrally positioned axis.” (Pl.’s Opp’n

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 14 of 24
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 figure located on page 16 depicts the orientations 7

of the hypotenuses of the teeth of two embodiments of the

patents-in-suit and of the allegedly infringing product. 

15

30.)7

Plaintiff’s proposed construction would prevent the

claim language from limiting or modifying the claims in any way,

and would therefore render the language unnecessary. Plaintiff

discusses the orientation of the hypotenuse as being either

towards or away from the center line, but discusses no other

possible orientation for hypotenuses. (Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for

Summ. J. 33.) A limitation within a claim should not be

construed in a manner that would cause it to be “meaninglessly

empty.” See Ethicon End-Surgery v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d

1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Because there are only two possible

orientations for each hypotenuse, plaintiff’s proposed claim

construction that each individual hypotenuse may face either

toward or away from the centrally positioned axis, without regard

to the positions of the other hypotenuses, does not limit the

claim in any way. Such a statement would be true of the bone saw

claimed by the patent even if that claim language had been

omitted. Furthermore, the term “each” means “all considered one

by one,” according to Webster’s Third New International

Dictionary 713 (4th ed. 1976). Therefore, the court construes

the phrase “each hypotenuse is oriented at least one of towards

and away from the centrally positioned long axis” 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

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 15 of 24
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 argues that under this proposed definition, 8

the dependent claims would become superfluous because they are

subsumed within the definition. (Pl.’s Opp’n 33.) However,

patentees have an obligation to include broader and narrower

claims to retain coverage of the invention. See Johnson &

Johnston Assocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., Inc., 285 F.3d 1046,

1057 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that “the patentee has an

obligation to draft claims that capture all reasonably

foreseeable ways to practice the invention”). Such construction

additionally protects a patentee in the event that the broader

claims are rejected by the patent office or invalidated in the

course of litigation. Of concern is when a claim limitation

becomes “meaninglessly empty,” in that it contributes nothing to

the understanding of the claim. It is not concerning when a

claim is dependent upon another; that type of superfluousness is

common to any well-drafted patent.

16

axis.”8

C. Literal Infringement

As noted, defendant contends that there are three

categories of its products that do not infringe plaintiff’s

patents: (1) Stryker blades with curved tops, (2) Stryker DualCut blades, and (3) Stryker offset-teeth blades. 

1. Curved Top Blades

As discussed supra, both patents cover blades with flat

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 16 of 24
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

At oral argument, plaintiff offered to stipulate to 9

noninfringement with regard to Stryker blades provided that

defendant provided sufficient evidence that particular blades had

curved tops. The court encourages the parties to come to an

efficient resolution of this issue.

17

tops. (See Section II(B)(2)(A).) Defendant contends that two of

its models, Stryker Part Nos. 2108-102S12 and 2108-151S4, have

curved tops and therefore do not infringe plaintiff’s patent. 

However, defendant concedes that these models had flat tops until

May 2005. (Def.’s Reply 2.) 

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.” Plaintiff presents pictures of the 2108-

102S12 and 2108-141S4 parts with flat tops, and defendant

counters these pictures with a declaration from its research

director David Tallon, stating that these models do not currently

have flat tops. The fact that Stryker Parts No. 2108-102S12 and

2108-151S4 may not currently infringe the ‘253 and/or ‘353

patents is not determinative, because they may have infringed at

some point during the life of the patent. Therefore, summary

judgment of noninfringement may not be granted on this issue.9

2. Stryker Dual-Cut Blades

Defendant additionally argues that the Stryker Dual-Cut

blades do not infringe Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 of the ‘353

patent because (1) the teeth do not end in “a tip,” (2) the

teeth’s tips are not “arrayed on a line perpendicular to the

centrally positioned long axis,” (3) the blades are not

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 17 of 24
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

configured such that “each hypotenuse is oriented toward the

centrally positioned long axis,” and (4) the teeth are not shaped

substantially as right triangles.

Because the Dual-Cut blades are not configured such

that “each hypotenuse is oriented toward the centrally positioned

long axis,” summary judgment of the Dual-Cut blade’s

noninfringement of the ‘353 patent is warranted. Regardless of

whether the teeth on the Dual-Cut blades are considered to be

fishtail-shaped or triangular, there are multiple hypotenuses

facing in opposite directions. Therefore, all hypotenuses of the

teeth on these blades are not oriented toward the central axis,

and do not infringe the ‘353 patent as a matter of law.

Defendant further argues that its Dual-Cut blades do

not infringe Claims 1, 14, and 15-18 of the ‘253 patent, which

include claim language that the teeth must “end in a . . . tip,”

and that these tips be “configured to be placed substantially on

a tangent.” As discussed above, the term “a tip” refers to one

or more tips, and even a description of the blades as having

multiple tips could therefore infringe the ‘253 patent. 

Additionally, the ‘253 patent requires that the tips be placed

“substantially on a tangent.” The Dual-Cut blades have offset

teeth that are “arrayed on a line perpendicular to the centrally

positioned long axis.” This court has interpreted the term “a

line” to refer to a single straight line that is the intersection

of two planes. The parties do not dispute that the teeth on

Striker’s Dual-Cut Blades are offset. However, from actual

physical examination of the blades, it was apparent that although

the particular tips are not precisely in line, they are not so

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 18 of 24
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. 10

4225-147-090, differs from the rest in that it does not have

offset teeth. Because its teeth are not offset, summary judgment

of non-infringement of Claims 1, 14, and 15-18 with respect to

this model is also precluded. 

19

far offset that they do not overlap. The center of each tip does

not appear to intersect a straight line that is perpendicular to

the central axis, but each tip does in fact touch such a line,

and the tips are “substantially” on a tangent. Therefore, the

court cannot grant summary judgment of noninfringement on this

issue.10

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

contain the following four requirements: (1) the blades must have

teeth where “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,” (2) the teeth must be shaped

“substantially as right triangles,” (3) the cutting surfaces must

end in “a tip,” and (4) the teeth must be “configured to be

placed substantially on a tangent.” As discussed above, the

Dual-Cut blades have hypotenuses which face both towards and away

from the centrally positioned long axis; they are not all

oriented either towards or away from the central axis.

Additionally, the Dual-Cut blades are not shaped

substantially as right triangles. Even if the court were to

“cut” across the fishtail and sever the two pointed ends, the

fishtail shape contains a curved outer edge that would prevent

the edges from resembling the straight sides of a right triangle. 

Moreover, the argument that each fishtail should be viewed as two

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 19 of 24
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 analogizes to inapposite prior art for the 11

proposition that each fishtail tooth is really two triangular

teeth. (Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 24-29.) One example cited by

plaintiff refers to a “tooth-pair,” which appears to be an

example of a patentee acting as his or her own lexicographer that

would not be readily translated to another patentee. Other

patents describe two adjacent triangular teeth, which are quite

distinct from the teeth at issue here–-taken together, they

resemble only the top of a fishtail, without a supporting stalk. 

By contrast, the ‘136 patent, which is appended to plaintiff’s

own motion, provides a clearly analogous fishtail shape that is

described as one tooth.

20

right triangles presumes that the court would cut the fishtails

at the point where two right triangles should form. Even if a

fishtail tooth were more accurately described as two teeth, or

two “cutting surfaces,” there are several ways to demarcate the

teeth, and there is no reason to choose plaintiff’s construction

over any other (except that plaintiff’s point of demarcation

could possibly create two right triangles). Finally, others who

are skilled in the art have similarly defined a fishtail shape as

a singular tooth. In particular, the 243,136 patent covers a

surgical saw blade with fishtail shaped teeth and refers to each

individual fishtail as a separate tooth. (Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot.

for Summ. J., Fisher Decl. Ex. G, ‘136 patent, 2:0028 (“each

tooth includes a V-shaped valley between the cutting edges

thereof with the apex of the valley disposed on the centerline []

of the tooth”).) For these reasons, the Dual-Cut blades do 11

not infringe Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 of the ‘253 patent.

3. Stryker Offset-teeth Blades

Defendant additionally argues that the Stryker Offsetteeth blades do not infringe claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 of the

‘353 patent because the teeth’s tips are offset and not “arrayed

on a line perpendicular to the centrally positioned long axis.” 

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 20 of 24
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

As discussed above, the offset teeth, although not centered on

such a line, may still be positioned on that line. Therefore,

summary judgment of non-infringement of the ‘353 patent is

unwarranted with respect to the Stryker Offset-teeth blades.

Similarly, defendant’s Offset-teeth blades may infringe

Claims 1, 14, and 15-18 of the ‘253 patent, which include claim

language that the teeth must “end in a . . . tip,” and that these

tips be “configured to be placed substantially on a tangent.” 

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

contain the requirement that the teeth must be “configured to be

placed substantially on a tangent.” As previously discussed, the

Stryker Offset-teeth blades may not be directly centered on a

line, but they are “substantially” positioned on a line, or

tangent. Therefore, the court cannot grant summary judgment of

non-infringement on this issue. 

D. 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-wayCase 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 21 of 24
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

result 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). 

Of the claim language analyzed by the court, there are 

two limitations for which the court did not find literal

infringement: the court found that Dual-Cut blades are not

configured such that “each hypotenuse is oriented toward the

centrally positioned long axis,” and that the teeth of Dual-Cut

blades are not shaped “substantially as right triangles.”

Plaintiff argues that the defendant’s fishtail structures are

insubstantially different from the triangular teeth of its

invention and that the orientation of the hypotenuses in both

directions is similarly insignificant. 

Plaintiff is estopped from asserting that a fishtail

shape is equivalent to a right triangle 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 overcame rejection of

the invention by narrowing its claims and writing to the patent

examiner that, in combination with the geometric arrangement of

the teeth, “Applicants’ limitation to saw blades having right

triangularly shaped teeth[] clearly renders the revised claims

patentable over the prior art.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. I

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 22 of 24
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

(‘353 patent file history, Aug. 13, 1992 Amendments) at 7-8.) 

The application of the DOE is thus barred through

prosecution history estoppel from covering something beyond the

claim limitation of a right triangle shape. Because each claim

limitation must be present actually or equivalently for a product

to be infringing, the DOE will not disturb this court’s finding

of noninfringement for the Stryker Dual-Cut blades of claims that

include the limitation of teeth shaped as right triangles,

namely, the ‘353 patent and Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the

‘253 patent. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for

summary judgment of noninfringement of the all asserted claims of

the ‘353 patent and Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the ‘253

patent be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED with respect to the

Stryker Dual-Cut blades. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for

summary judgment of noninfringement of the all asserted claims of

the ‘353 patent and Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 of the ‘253

patent be, and the same hereby is, DENIED with respect to the

Stryker Offset blades. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for

summary judgment of noninfringement of Claims 1 and 14-18 of the

‘253 patent be, and the same hereby is, DENIED with respect to

the Stryker Dual-Cut blades and Offset blades.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for

summary judgment of noninfringement of the ‘353 and ‘253 patents

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 23 of 24
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

be, and the same hereby is, DENIED with respect to Stryker Parts

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

DATED: March 30, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-01515-WBS-DAD Document 43 Filed 03/31/06 Page 24 of 24