Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03817/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03817-31/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, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-03817 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING ON COOK’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, SCHEDULED ON February 1,

2008 at 9:00 a.m.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and

opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies

available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED

to submit the citations to the authorities only, with pin cites and without argument or additional

briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral

argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

The parties each shall have twenty (20) minutes to address the following questions.

1. What is Mr. Biggs’ position at Cook, and where in the record can the Court find

that information?

Case 3:03-cv-03817-JSW Document 667 Filed 01/29/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2. With the exception of Plaintiffs’ argument on the use of the molding balloons, do

Plaintiffs dispute that Cook’s devices expand based on release of pressure on the

wires, rather than from exerting pressure on the wires? 

3. a. Cook’s evidence demonstrates that the accused devices use stainless steel

wires. The specification of the ‘458 Patent provides that “[t]he wires are

preferably formed of stainless steel or another metal or a plastic which is

maleable [sic] and is biocompatable.” (‘458 Patent, col. 3, ll. 8-10.) 

Why would this not create a disputed issue of fact as to whether Cook’s

wires are “malleable?” 

b. Exhibit D to the Declaration of Tracy Braun in Opposition to Cook’s

motion is a publication that refers to the White-Yu Endovascular GAD

graft, and which states that graft “has a specially made self-expanding

stent that is called the graft attachment device.” (Braun Decl., Ex. D at

246.) How does Cook respond to that statement?

4. Plaintiffs argue that the plain meaning of the term “malleable,” demonstrates that

Cook’s products infringe. Notwithstanding that definition, page 15:21-16:5 of

the Court’s Claim Construction Order would appear to give a different meaning

to the term “malleable.” 

a. Recognizing that Plaintiffs disagree with the Court’s construction, why

does this section not support Cook’s argument that the Court intended

“malleable” to mean balloon-expandable? (See, e.g., Plaintiffs’

Responsive Claim Construction Brief at 15:6-10.) 

b. Plaintiffs also argue that the in the phrase “The wires 17 are malleable

and may be bent into any desired shape, ie [sic] they are not resilient to

any substantial extent so that they have to be physically expanded into

contact with the aorta rather than expanding by virtue of their own

resilience,” the term “i.e.” should be equated with “and.” (Plaintiffs’

Opp. at 7:10-19.) The term “i.e.,” however, is “[a]n abbreviation for ‘id.

Case 3:03-cv-03817-JSW Document 667 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Est.,’ that is; that is to say.” (Blacks Law Dictionary at 746 (6th ed.

1990).) Do Plaintiffs have any other basis to argue that the “i.e.” clause

does not mean “that is [the wires] are not resilient to any substantial

extent ... ?”

c. Although Plaintiffs argue that they could not have disclaimed resilient

wires, the Court views the argument at 8:9-10:13 to be arguing against

the Court’s conclusions in the Claim Construction Order at 15:21-16:5. 

Plaintiffs did not, however, seek leave to file a motion for

reconsideration. Why should the Court consider this argument now? 

5. How do Plaintiffs respond to Cook’s argument on reply regarding the manner in

which the inventors attempted to distinguish the Piplani ‘295 Patent?

6. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address? 

Dated: January 29, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03817-JSW Document 667 Filed 01/29/08 Page 3 of 3