Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00567/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00567-16/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDTRONIC, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs

 v.

AGA MEDICAL CORPORATION,

Defendant

 /

No. C 07-567 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

 Before the Court is defendant AGA Medical Corporation’s (“AGA”) “Motion for Leave

to File Motion for Reconsideration of Order Construing Claims,” filed February 20, 2008, by

which AGA seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order, filed February 6, 2008, to the extent

such order adopted plaintiffs Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic USA, Inc., and Medtronic Vascular,

Inc.’s (collectively, “Medtronic”) construction of the term “stent.” 

In its order of February 6, 2008, the Court construed the term “stent” to mean “a

supporting device.” (See Order Construing Claims at 3:4-7.) AGA seeks reconsideration of

said finding, on the asserted ground that the Court’s methodology in construing the term did

not follow the principles set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Specifically, AGA argues, the Court did not follow “the proper procedure for construing

claim terms,” (see Motion at 2:12-14), based on AGA’s assertion that the Court first

considered dictionary definitions and other extrinsic evidence before looking to the

Case 3:07-cv-00567-MMC Document 96 Filed 02/28/08 Page 1 of 3
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

 Indeed, AGA’s initial argument in support of its construction of the term “stent” is

premised on the dictionary definition of the term found in Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. 

(See AGA’s Responsive Claim Constr. Brief at 15:2-6.)

2

specification, (see id. at 4:23-25).

Having again reviewed the issue, the Court finds no basis upon which to reconsider

its prior decision. In Phillips, the Federal Circuit held that a court is not “barred from

considering any particular sources or required to analyze sources in any specific sequence,

as long as those sources are not used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in

light of the intrinsic evidence.” See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324. The court also recognized

that “judges are free to consult dictionaries and technical treatises at any time in order to

better understand the underlying technology and may also rely on dictionary definitions

when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any

definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” See id. at 1322-

23 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Here, in construing the term “stent,” the Court properly considered both intrinsic

evidence, including the use of the term in the patent specification, and extrinsic evidence,

including dictionary definitions provided by both Medtronic and AGA.1 Contrary to AGA’s

argument, the Court, as noted, need not consult sources in any particular order of

succession; rather, the Court’s duty is to ensure appropriate weight is given to each source,

regardless of the sequence in which such sources are considered. See id. at 1324 (holding

“[t]he sequence of steps used by the judge in consulting various sources is not important;

what matters is for the court to attach the appropriate weight to be assigned to those

sources . . . .”). In the instant case, the Court gave the requisite weight to the term’s use in

the specification and did not use extrinsic evidence “to contradict claim meaning that 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-00567-MMC Document 96 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 3
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

is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.” See id. 

Accordingly, AGA’s motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00567-MMC Document 96 Filed 02/28/08 Page 3 of 3