Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02972/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02972-54/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

In all other respects, the Court, by order filed October 2, 2007, denied defendants’

motion for summary judgment.

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., DIOMED, INC.,

ANGIODYNAMICS, INC., and VASCULAR

SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-05-2972 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFERRED PORTION

OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER 35

U.S.C. §§ 102-103

By order filed October 2, 2007, the Court deferred ruling in part on defendants’ 

“Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103,” filed August 10,

2007. Specifically, the Court deferred ruling on the motion to the extent defendants seek

summary judgment on the issue of obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of U.S.

Patent No. 6,258,084 (“‘084 Patent”) and Claims 1, 2 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,752,803

(“‘803 Patent”),1

 in order to afford plaintiff the opportunity to file a surreply to respond to an

argument raised for the first time in defendants’ reply; plaintiff subsequently filed its surreply

to respond to the new argument. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in

opposition to the deferred portion of the motion, the Court rules as follows.

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 554 Filed 10/22/07 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

2

A claim is invalid as obvious when “‘the differences between the subject matter

[claimed in the patent] and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would

have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person skilled in the art.’” See

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103). 

Defendants first argue that the above-referenced claims are invalid as obvious in

light of two prior art references, specifically, a patent application published as International

Publication No. WO 97/32532 and a book titled “Ambulatory Phlebectomy.” For the

reasons stated by plaintiff, the Court finds a triable issue of fact exists as to whether a

person skilled in the art would have found it obvious, in light of the prior art references on

which defendants rely, to use “tumescent anesthesia” to compress and exsanguinate a vein

when performing an “endovenous” procedure on a vein. (See McGraw Decl.¶¶ 4-9;

Nguyen §§ 102-103 Decl., filed August 24, 2007, Ex. 9 at 19-20; Goldman Decl., filed

August 24, 2007, ¶¶ 9-20.)

In their reply, defendants further argue that, even if a person skilled in the art would

not have found it obvious from the prior art to employ tumescent anesthesia for such

compression and exsanguination purposes, the claims nevertheless are invalid because

they only disclose “inherent characteristics or functioning of the prior art.” (See Defs.’

Reply, filed August 31, 2007, at 2:9-19.) “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated

property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s

functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas

Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F. 3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the instant case,

defendants argue that if a person skilled in the art used tumescent anethesia for anesthetic

purposes, the purpose disclosed in one of the prior art references on which defendants

rely, such person would “necessarily,” even if unknowingly, be performing the claimed

steps of compressing and exsanguinating a vein. (See Defs.’ Reply at 2:18-19.) The

Court, for the reasons stated by plaintiff, finds defendants are not entitled to summary

judgment under such theory, in light of plaintiff’s having offered sufficient evidence to

support a finding that a person who uses tumescent anesthesia for anesthetic purposes

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 554 Filed 10/22/07 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

would not necessarily perform the claimed steps, (see ‘084 Patent, col. 17, ll. 63-67; ‘803

Patent, col. 18, ll. 6-9), in the course of such use. (See Goldman Decl., filed October 10,

2007, ¶¶ 7-11; Nguyen Decl., filed October 10, 2007, Ex. 1 at 7; id. Ex. 2 at 118.)

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the deferred portion of defendant’s motion for

summary judgment under §§ 102-103 is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02972-MMC Document 554 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 3