Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02972/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02972-19/pdf.json

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

The claims in which each of the ten disputed terms are found are set forth in Exhibit

B to the Amended Patent Local Rule 4-3(b) Chart, filed October 23, 2006.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VNUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Plaintiff

 v.

DIOMED HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Defendant /

No. C-05-2972 MMC

AMENDED ORDER CONSTRUING

CLAIMS

The Order Construing Claims, filed November 20, 2006, is hereby AMENDED to

correct a typographical error, specifically, to replace the phrase “a tubular, flexible, surgical

instrument, including, but limited to, a sheath,” as found on page 2 and on page 3, with the

phrase “a tubular, flexible, surgical instrument, including, but not limited to, a sheath”:

Before the Court is the parties’ dispute regarding the proper construction of ten

terms in four patents, specifically, U.S. Patent 6,638,273 (“‘273 Patent”), U.S. Patent

6,258,084 (“‘084 Patent”), U.S. Patent 6,752,803 (“‘803 Patent”), and U.S. Patent

6,769,433 (“‘433 Patent”).1

 Plaintiff Vnus Medical Technologies (“Vnus”), defendants

Diomed Holdings, Inc., Diomed, Inc. (collectively, “Diomed”), defendant AngioDynamics,

Inc. (“AngioDynamics”), and defendant Vascular Solutions, Inc. (“VSI”) have submitted

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 135 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Where the Court has adopted a party’s proposed construction as to a term, the

adopted construction is set forth below without further discussion. Where the Court has

adopted one party’s construction, but with some modification, an explanation is provided.

3

The parties’ respective constructions as set forth herein are taken from the

Amended Patent Local Rule 4-3(b) Chart, filed October 23, 2006. Any brackets contained

in such constructions as set forth herein are in the original.

4

The Court has not adopted the additional language proposed by Vnus, specifically,

“that is inserted into a cavity of the body”; such language is a proposed construction of “into

the hollow anatomical structure,” which is not one of the ten disputed terms before the

Court.

2

briefs and evidence in support of their respective positions on the disputed terms. The

matter came on regularly for hearing on October 30, 2006. Matthew B. Lehr and Suong T.

Nguyen of Davis, Polk & Wardwell appeared on behalf of Vnus. Howard A. Slavitt of

Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP, and Michael A. Alpert and Michael N. Rader of Wolf,

Greenberg & Sacks, P.C., appeared on behalf of Diomed. William H. Bright, Jr., and Mark

D. Giarratana of McCarter & English, LLP, appeared on behalf of AngioDynamics. J.

Thomas Vitt of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, appeared on behalf of VSI.

Having considered the papers submitted and the arguments of counsel, the Court

rules as follows.2

1. A Catheter Having A Working End (Claim 1, ‘803 Patent; Claim 1, ‘433 Patent)

Vnus argues “catheter,” as found in the term “a catheter having a working end”

should be construed as “a tubular, flexible, surgical instrument that is inserted into a cavity

of the body, including, but not limited to, a sheath,” and argues “working end,” as found in

the subject term, should be construed as “direction toward the treatment site in the patient

(contrast with connecting end).” Defendants argue “a catheter having a working end”

should be construed as “a hollow, tubular instrument pre-assembled with electrodes

capable of applying energy at the end of the instrument proximate the treatment site.”3

The Court, for the reasons stated by Vnus, finds “a catheter having a working end” is

properly construed as “a tubular, flexible, surgical instrument, including, but not limited to, a

sheath, having an end directed toward the treatment site in the patient.”4

//

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 135 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 7
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

For the reasons stated above with respect to the first disputed term, the Court has

not adopted Vnus’ proposed additional language, specifically, “that is inserted into a cavity

of the body.” The Court has added “thermal energy” to Vnus’ proposed construction. See

‘084 Patent, col. 7, ll. 58-59.

3

2. A Catheter Having A Working End With An Energy Application Device At The

Working End (Claims 1 and 18, ‘084 Patent)

Vnus argues “catheter” and “having a working end,” as found in the term “a catheter

having a working end with an energy application device at the working end,” should be

construed as set forth above with respect to the first disputed term, and additionally argues

the phrase “energy application device,” as set forth in the subject term, should be

construed as “a device for delivering energy, such energy includes, but is not limited to, RF

energy, microwaves, ultrasound, direct current, circulating heated fluid, radiant light and

lasers.” Defendants argue “a catheter having a working end” should be construed as “a

hollow, tubular instrument pre-assembled with electrodes capable of applying energy at the

end of the instrument proximate the treatment site.”

The Court, for the reasons stated by Vnus, finds “a catheter having a working end

with an energy application device at the working end” is properly construed as “a tubular,

flexible, surgical instrument, including, but not limited to, a sheath, having an end directed

toward the treatment site in the patient, with a device at that end for delivering energy, such

energy including, but not limited to, RF energy, microwaves, ultrasound, direct current,

circulating heated fluid, radiant light, laser, and thermal energy.”5

3. Effectively Occlude (Claim 1, ‘803 Patent)

Vnus argues “effectively occlude” should be construed as “significantly reduce the

flow of blood through the treated hollow anatomical structure, including, but not limited to,

full-lumen closure.” Defendants argue “effectively occlude” should be construed as “to

shrink the inner diameter of the [hollow structure/vein] to be no smaller than the electrode

device, thus reducing but not eliminating the flow of fluid (e.g., blood) through the lumen

after the electrode device is removed. The [hollow structure/vein] must maintain this

smaller but non-zero diameter with a reduced but continued fluid flow for a lasting (i.e. nonCase 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 135 Filed 11/22/06 Page 3 of 7
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

temporary) period.”

The Court, for the reasons stated by Vnus, finds “effectively occlude” is properly

construed as “significantly reduce the flow of blood through the treated hollow anatomical

structure, including, but not limited to, full-lumen closure.”

4. Durably Assumes A Smaller Size (Claim 1, ‘084 Patent)/Durably Assumes A

Reduced Size (Claim 1, ‘803 Patent)

Vnus argues the term “durably assumes a smaller size”/“durably assumes a reduced

size” should be construed as “assumption and retention of compressed diameter after

treatment smaller than pre-treatment.” Defendants argue the term “durably assumes a

smaller size”/“durably assumes a reduced size” should be construed as “the [hollow

structure/vein] must maintain this smaller but non-zero diameter with a reduced but

continued fluid flow for a lasting (i.e. non-temporary) period. The [hollow structure/vein]

must maintain this smaller but non-zero diameter with a reduced but continued fluid flow for

a lasting (i.e. non-temporary) period.”

The Court, for the reasons stated by Vnus, finds “durably assumes a smaller

size”/“durably assumes a reduced size” is properly construed as “assumes and retains a

compressed diameter after treatment smaller than pre-treatment.”

5. Durably Assume A Diameter At Least As Small As The Reduced Diameter

Achieved In The Step Of Pre-shaping” (Claim 1, ‘433 Patent)

Vnus argues “durably assume a diameter at least as small as the reduced diameter

achieved in the step of pre-shaping” should be construed in the same manner as “durably

assumes a smaller size”/“durably assumes a reduced size,” specifically, “assumption and

retention of compressed diameter after treatment smaller than pre-treatment.” Defendants

argue “durably assume a diameter at least as small as the reduced diameter achieved in

the step of pre-shaping” should be construed in the same manner as “durably assumes a

smaller size”/“durably assumes a reduced size,” specifically, “the [hollow structure/vein]

must maintain this smaller but non-zero diameter with a reduced but continued fluid flow for

a lasting (i.e. non-temporary) period. The [hollow structure/vein] must maintain this smaller

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 135 Filed 11/22/06 Page 4 of 7
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

The Court has not adopted defendants’ proposed additional language, specifically,

the phrases “accommodating ordinary levels of fluid (e.g., blood) flow” and “until the hollow

anatomical structure will.” Defendants have failed to show the patent requires

accommodation of “ordinary” flow, and the claim already includes the phrase “such that the

hollow structure will.” See ‘273 Patent, col. 19, line 18.

5

but non-zero diameter with a reduced but continued fluid flow for a lasting (i.e. nontemporary) period.”

The Court, for the reasons stated by Vnus, finds “durably assume a diameter at least

as small as the reduced diameter achieved in the step of pre-shaping” is properly construed

as “assumes and retains a compressed diameter after treatment smaller than pretreatment.”

6. Remain At the Specific Size (Claim 1, ‘273 Patent)

Vnus argues “remain at the specific size” should be construed in the same manner

as “durably assumes a smaller size”/“durably assumes a reduced size” and “durably

assume a diameter at least as small as the reduced diameter achieved in the step of preshaping,” specifically, “assumption and retention of compressed diameter after treatment

smaller than pre-treatment.” Defendants argue “remain at the specific size” should be

construed as “until the hollow anatomical structure will maintain the predetermined smaller

but non-zero diameter, accommodating ordinary levels of fluid (e.g., blood) flow for a lasting

(i.e., non-temporary) period without external compression.”

The Court, for the reasons stated by defendants, finds “remain at the specific size” is

properly construed as “maintain the predetermined smaller but non-zero diameter for a

lasting (i.e., non-temporary) period without external compression.”6

7. Positioning . . . At A Treatment Site (Claim 1, ‘803 Patent; Claim 1, ‘273 Patent)

Vnus argues the term “positioning . . . at a treatment site” does not require

construction. Defendants argue “positioning . . . at a treatment site” should be construed

as “deliberately placing the working end of the catheter in physical contact with the site on

the inner wall of the hollow anatomical structure that is to receive energy from the electrode

//

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 135 Filed 11/22/06 Page 5 of 7
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

Diomed has taken no position with respect to the construction of disputed terms 7

through 10. Accordingly, the reference to “defendants,” for purposes of disputed terms 7

through 10, is a reference to AngioDynamics and VSI only.

8

The Court has not adopted defendants’ proposed construction that the compression

must be external to the “body”; although the specification states that a tourniquet “can be

used” to “externally compress” the vein, see, e.g., ‘433 Patent, col. 4, ll. 18-25, the

specification does not include language limiting the patent to only that manner of external

compression. Additionally, the Court has not included in its construction the phrase “the

vein such that the inner wall of the vein,” because such language is already included in

Claim 1. See id., col. 19, ll. 20-21. Finally, the Court has not included in its construction

defendants’ proposed additional phrase “collapses into contact with the electrode device”;

such language is a proposed construction of “is brought toward the working end of the

catheter,” which is not one of the ten disputed terms before the Court.

6

device.”7

The Court, for the reasons stated by Vnus, finds “positioning . . . at a treatment site”

does not require construction.

8. Pre-shaping (Claim 1, ‘433 Patent)

Vnus argues the term “pre-shaping” does not require construction. Defendants

argue “pre-shaping” should be construed as “applying compression external to the body to

shape the vein such that the inner wall of the vein collapses into contact with the electrode

device.”

The Court finds “pre-shaping” is properly construed as “applying compression

external to the vein to shape.”8

9. Applying Energy To (Claim 1, ‘803 Patent; Claims 1 and 18, ‘084 Patent)/Applying

Energy . . . To (Claim 1, ‘433 Patent)

Vnus argues the term “applying energy to”/“applying energy . . . to” does not require

construction. Defendants argue “applying energy to”/“applying energy . . . to” should be

construed as “applying energy directly to the inner wall of the [hollow anatomical structure/

vein] through physical contact between the electrode device and the inner wall of the

[hollow anatomical structure/vein] and maintaining the electrode device in physical contact

with the inner wall.”

The Court, for the reasons stated by Vnus, finds “applying energy to”/“applying

energy . . . to” does not require construction.

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 135 Filed 11/22/06 Page 6 of 7
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

10. Moving . . . Along (Claims 20 and 21, ‘084 Patent; Claim 2, ‘803 Patent; Claim 1,

‘433 Patent)

Vnus argues the term “moving . . . along” does not require construction. Defendants

argue “moving . . . along” should be construed as “moving the electrode catheter along the

inner wall of the vein while maintaining physical contact between the electrode and the

inner wall of the vein while the electrode applies energy to the vein.”

The Court, for the reasons stated by Vnus, finds “moving . . . along” does not require

construction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 135 Filed 11/22/06 Page 7 of 7