Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03393/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03393-66/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANGIOSCORE, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRIREME MEDICAL, INC., ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 12-cv-03393-YGR 

PRE-TRIAL ORDER NO. 1 (PATENT CLAIMS) 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 464, 660, 663, 668-69 

I. ADDITIONAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

The parties have requested additional claim construction now that the case is in its final 

stages of preparation for trial. (See Dkt. Nos. 660, 663, 668-69.) Having carefully considered the 

parties’ briefs, the arguments of counsel at the July 22, 2015 hearing, the patent-at-issue, and the 

Court’s earlier claim construction order (Dkt. No. 218), the Court construes the following 

additional terms consistent with its earlier order, for the reasons stated on the record, and good 

cause showing: 

Term Construction

stent “tube-like structure” 

strut(s) Ordinary and customary meaning. 

proximal end of the catheter shaft “the part of the device where the stent, catheter 

shaft, and balloon connect, which is nearest to 

the doctor when the device is inserted” 

distal end of the catheter shaft “the part of the device where the stent, catheter 

shaft, and balloon connect, which is farthest 

from the doctor when the device is inserted” 

longitudinally shorten “reshaping by returning to a bended state” 

Case 4:12-cv-03393-YGR Document 679 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

II. MOTION IN LIMINE RE: SHEEHAN REPORT 

With respect to plaintiff’s motion to preclude certain opinions of Neil Sheehan (Dkt. No. 

464), the Court considered the parties’ briefs, the arguments of counsel, and the report in question 

and previously explained the procedure the Court employs during trial with respect to experts’ 

views on claim construction, namely that no expert is allowed to explain the construction of terms 

during testimony. Having explained the process to the parties, it is not clear whether any dispute 

exists regarding the nature of the testimony either side anticipates offering with respect to their 

experts. Expert reports themselves are not admissible. The parties shall meet and confer to 

determine whether any issues remain in light of the Court’s explanations and constructions 

provided herein. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in the event that issues remain 

unresolved. 

With respect to the defense’s oral motion from the July 22, 2015 hearing to supplement 

Neil Sheehan’s report, the motion is DENIED. The Court has reviewed the relevant portions of the 

report and finds that they have adequately explained his opinions. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 464. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 30, 2015 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:12-cv-03393-YGR Document 679 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 2