Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03817/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03817-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 COOK INCORPORATED, and W.L. GORE

& ASSOCIATES, INC.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-03817 JSW

ORDER REQUESTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

The parties ask the Court to construe the terms “prosthesis,” as used in the preambles of

the ‘458 Patent and the ‘158 Patent, and the term “graft,” as used in the preamble of the ‘073

Patent and the ‘736 Patent. Because the patents-in-suit each are continuations of a parent patent

and share a common specification, the Court also must “interpret the claims consistently across

all asserted patents.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir.

2005). In their Joint Claim Construction Statement and Claim Construction Briefs, however,

the parties do not ask the Court to construe the terms “graft” and “prosthesis,” as those terms

are used in the bodies of certain claims, for example dependent claim 22 of the ‘158 Patent

(“wherein the prosthesis ...”) and independent claim 10 of the ‘458 Patent (“a first graft

comprising...).

“Whether to treat a preamble as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each

case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Storage

Technology Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Catalina

Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The Federal

Case 3:03-cv-03817-JSW Document 476 Filed 06/28/07 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

2

Circuit has stated that “a preamble generally limits the claimed invention if it ‘recites essential

structure or 

steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” NTP, Inc., 418 F.3d

at 1305; see also Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

(“When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the

preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.”);

C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[A] preamble usually

does not limit the scope of the claim unless the preamble provides antecedents for ensuring

claim terms and limits the claim accordingly.”). If, however, the preamble merely serves as a

“convenient label for the invention as a whole,” and the body of the claim sets out the complete

invention, a preamble will not limit the scope of the claims. Storage Technology, 329 F.3d at

831; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir.

2001) (citing Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir.

1999)).

The parties are HEREBY ORDERED to submit supplemental briefs to the Court

outlining their positions on why the terms “prosthesis” and “graft,” as used in the preambles of

the asserted claims must be construed. Such briefs shall not exceed seven pages and shall be

due to the Court by no later than July 9, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03817-JSW Document 476 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 2