Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04455/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04455-32/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDTRONIC, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-04455 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Now before the Court is the motion for reconsideration filed by Defendant W.L. Gore &

Associates, Inc. (“Gore”), in which Gore asks this Court to reconsider its claim construction of

the term “stent” as that term is used in the asserted claims of United States Patent Nos.

4,886,062, 6,656,219 and 6,923,828 (“the Wiktor Patents”). Having considered the parties’

papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court finds the matter suitable

for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

The Court initially construed the term “stent” to mean “a supporting device, without any

attached fabric or graft material.” (See Declaration of Joshua Walsh-Benson in Opposition to

gore’s Motion for Reconsideration (“Walsh-Benson Decl.”), Ex. 1 (Oct. 19, 2007 Claim

Construction Order at 16:21-22).) On Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court reconsidered that

construction and construed the term “stent” to mean “a supporting device.” (Id., Ex. 2 (Order

on Motion to Reconsider Claim Construction of “Stent”) at 2:22-25).) 

Gore argues that the Court should reconsider its prior constructions on the basis that

extrinsic evidence, consisting of statements by Wiktor, demonstrates that Wiktor had not

conceived of or reduced to practice a resilient stent or a covered stent, at the time he filed the

Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 204 Filed 06/30/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 With respect to the “low memory metal” limitation proposed by Gore, the

stents in question are formed from wires. Gore’s argument on the low memory metal

limitation appears to address the material out of which those wires are made. However, the

claims of the patents-in-suit include wire as a separate claim term. Gore initially presented

the term “wire” as a term to be construed. (See Docket No. 51 (Joint Claim Construction

Statement, Ex. A). However, the Court determined that the parties presented more than ten

terms for the Court to construe and also stated that it appeared that they had not agreed which 

terms required construction. Accordingly, the Court ordered them to meet and confer to

narrow the issues for claim construction. (See Docket No. 64.) In the revised Joint Claim

Construction statement, the parties did not submit the term “wire” for construction. (See

Docket No. 70.)

2

applications for the Wiktor Patents. The Court has considered Gore’s arguments, but finds no

basis to overturn its determination that the term “stent” should be construed to mean “a

supporting device.” Accordingly, Gore’s motion is DENIED.1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04455-JSW Document 204 Filed 06/30/08 Page 2 of 2