Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05669/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05669-52/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

1

 (See Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment for Invalidity of the Patents in Suit for

Failure to Comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 1 and 2, hereafter, “Motion,” filed under seal, redacted

version at Docket Item No. 610.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

The Regents of the University of California,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Micro Therapeutics, Inc. and Dendron GmbH,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 03-05669 JW 

AUGUST 23, 2007 ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF

WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORTING

CLAIMS CONTAINING THE PHRASE

“BODY CAVITY;” OR “DETACHING;”

OR “INCREASED TENSILE STRENGTH;” 

AND DENYING MOTION TO SET

PRIORITY DATE

In this patent infringement action by Plaintiff, The Regents of the University of California

(“The Regents” or “Plaintiff”) against Defendants Micro Therapeutics Inc. ("MTI") and its wholly

owned subsidiary Dendron GmbH (collectively, "Defendants"), Defendants have moved for

summary judgment that enumerated patents are invalid on multiple grounds.1

 The Court conducted

a hearing on June 5, 2007. The Court has chosen to address the grounds separately. This Order

addresses Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that particular patent claims are

invalid for lack of written description for three groups of patent claims: (1) claims which use the

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 875 Filed 08/23/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 The motion is addressed to Claims 1-3, 5, 11-14, 16-20, 23-24 of the ‘578 Patent; Claim 1,

4-10 and 12 of the ‘962 Patent; Claim 1, 4-7, and 10 of the ‘037 Patent; Claims 1-2, and 9 of the

‘126 Patent; Claims 1-2 and 6 of the ‘963 Patent; Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 16, 20 and 25-30, 35, 37-38, and

42-47 of the ‘133 Patent.

3

 The motion is addressed to Claims 1, 4-7 and 10 of the ‘037 Patent; Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9

of the ‘126 Patent; Claims 1-2, and 6 of the ‘963 Patent; Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 25-27 of the ‘133

Patent.

4

 (See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 10-12,

hereafter, “Plaintiff’s Opposition,” Docket No. 645.)

5

 In a Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties stipulated to a definition of “body cavity,”

as the term is used in Claim 1 of the ‘578 Patent as follows: “ any opening or passage way in the

human body, including but not limited to a vascular cavity.” (See Joint Claim Construction and

Prehearing Statement for Supplemental Claim Construction Hearing, Ex. B, Part 1 of 2 at 5, Docket

Item No. 353.)

2

term “body cavity;”2

 (2) claims which use the word any variation of the word “detaching”3 without a

variation of the word “electrolytic;” and (3) Claim 8 of the ‘133 Patent with respect to “increased

tensile strength.” 

The Court applies the legal standards with respect to invalidity for lack of written description

articulated in its August 17, 2007 Order. (See Docket Item No. 852.) As stated in the August 17

Order, whether or not a patent claim is invalid for lack of a written description is a question of fact. 

Lizardtech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 433 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Union Oil v. Atl.

Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

The Court finds that Defendants have not presented clear and convincing evidence that the

enumerated patents are invalid for lack of a sufficient written description. See U.S. Surgical Corp.

v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Generally, an issued patent enjoys a

presumption of validity that can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence of invalidity.)

Based on the showing made in Plaintiff’s opposition,4 a genuine question of fact exists as to whether

at the time of the original application, a person of skill in the art, reading the claims and

specification, would understand that the inventors had possession of an apparatus or method for use

in a “body cavity”5 other than a vascular cavity containing blood. Similarly, the evidence proffered

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 875 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 4
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

6

 (See Plaintiff’s Opposition at 13-14.)

7

 (See Plaintiff’s Opposition at 14.)

8

 (See Motion at 24.) The Court considered the motion notwithstanding the fact that it is not

properly noticed and docketed nor is it supported by legal analysis. 

3

by Plaintiff with respect to non-electrolytic detachment6 and “increased tensile strength”7 as used in

Claim 8 of the ‘133 Patent raise a genuine factual dispute. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment of invalidity on the recited grounds is DENIED. 

In its August 17, 2007, the Court articulated a series of questions the answers which are

designed to assist in deciding whether a patent claim is or is not invalid for lack of an adequate

written description. If Defendants decide to seek leave to renew this motion, Defendants are advised

that their memoranda and supporting declarations must be organized in accordance with the Court’s

August 17 articulation. 

Defendants have also moved the Court to hold that any claim which encompasses

detachment beyond electrolytic is not entitled to the benefit of the ‘717 Application filing date.8

Defendants’ motion is DENIED as premature.

Dated: August 23, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 875 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 4
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED

TO:

Amanda Marie Kessel akessel@goodwinprocter.com

Charles G. Curtis ccurtis@hewm.com

Chien-Ju Alice Chen achen@Fenwick.Com

Christopher T. Holding cholding@goodwinprocter.com

Colin G. Sandercock csandercock@proskauer.com

David J. Harth dharth@hewm.com

Gabrielle E. Bina gbina@hewm.com

J. Anthony Downs jdowns@goodwinprocter.com

John S. Skilton jskilton@hewm.com

John S. Skilton jskilton@hewm.com

Julie Lynn Fieber jfieber@flk.com

Lynn H. Pasahow lpasahow@fenwick.com

Michael Francis Kelleher mkelleher@flk.com

Michael J. Shuster mshuster@fenwick.com

Michael K. Plimack mplimack@hewm.com

Michelle M. Umberger mumberger@hewm.com

Patrick E. Premo ppremo@fenwick.com

Roland Schwillinski rschwillinski@goodwinprocter.com

Sarah C. Walkenhorst swalkenhorst@hewm.com

Wendy Lynn Bjerknes Wbjerknes@fenwick.com

Dated: August 23, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 875 Filed 08/23/07 Page 4 of 4