Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01474/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01474-12/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

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

Boston Scientific Corp. and Target

Therapeutics, Inc.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Cordis Corp.,

Defendant. /

NO. C 02-01474 JW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

OF ADDITIONAL CLAIM TERMS

I. INTRODUCTION

Boston Scientific Corp. and Target Therapeutics, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") filed this action against

Cordis Corp. ("Defendant") alleging infringement of a number of patents relating to methods and

devices for treating aneurysms. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Claim

Construction of Additional Claim Terms. Plaintiffs oppose this motion on numerous grounds. 

Based upon the parties’ submissions to date and oral arguments at the hearing on June 27, 2006, the

Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant’s Trufill DCS Detachable Coil System infringes

numerous claims of U.S. Patents 5,895,385 (“the ‘385 patent”), 6,010,498 (“the ‘498 patent”), and

6,238,415 (“the ‘415 patent”). On September 19, 2003, the Court held a hearing in accordance with

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), to construe the disputed terms and

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 884 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 5
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

 A request for reexamination of the ‘385 patent was filed concurrently with this request.

2

phrases of the asserted claims. On October 7, 2003, the Court issued a Markman Order construing

certain terms of the '385, ‘498, and ‘415 patents. (Docket No. 177.) A complete background of the

technology and patents-in-suit is provided in this Markman Order. 

On October 1, 2004, Defendant filed an Ex Parte Reexamination Request with the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) with respect to the ‘498 patent.1 (Declaration of Matthew

T. Powers in Support of Defendant Cordis’ Motion for Claim Construction of Additional Claim

Terms, “Def.’s Decl.,” Docket No. 859, Ex. 2.) Among other things, Defendant argued that claims 3

and 9 of the ‘498 patent, which describe the distal tip structure of the vascular catheter as “adapted

to be multiply folded upon itself,” were obvious in light of U.S. Patents 5,261,916 (“the ‘916

patent”) and 4,994,069 (“the ‘069 patent”). (Def.’s Decl. Ex. 2 at 12.) Specifically, Defendant

argued the ‘069 patent disclosed a coil that is “capable of being multiply folded upon itself to

occlude the body cavity.” (Def.’s Decl. Ex. 2 at 12.) 

In February 2006, the USPTO mailed a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination

Certificate (“NIRC”) with respect to the ‘498 patent. (Def.’s Decl. Ex. 1.) The USPTO examiner

rejected all of Defendant’s arguments. (Def.’s Decl. Ex. 1 at 2.) With respect to Defendant’s

arguments regarding the ‘916 and ‘069 patents, the examiner stated in part:

[The] ’916 respectfully to the request does not disclose a coil capable of being multiply

folded upon itself to fill the cavity of an aneurysm. Instead, Engelson ‘916 and the Ritchart

‘069, which is incorporated by reference by Engelson ‘916, coils are coils having a

predetermined shape when no forces are applied to said coils and after the proper amount of

force is placed on the coils in order for said coils to fit inside the catheter to be pushed

therethrough, said coils returned to the predetermined shapes that are generally dictated in

the figures of Ritchart ‘069 once released by the catheter.

(Def.’s Decl. Ex. 1. at 3.) 

In light of this statement, Defendant filed a motion for claim construction of “multiply folded

upon itself,” a term which appears in both the ‘385 and ‘498 patents. (Defendant Cordis’ Motion for

Claim Construction of Additional Claim Terms, “Def.’s Mot.,” Docket No. 858.) Plaintiffs oppose

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 884 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 5
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 3

Defendant’s motion on numerous grounds. (See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Cordis’ Motion

for Claim Construction of Additional Claim Terms, “Pls.’ Opp’n,” Docket No. 875.) 

III. DISCUSSION

The term “multiply folded upon itself” appears in both the ‘385 and ‘498 patents. 

Independent claims 7, 15, 32, and 38 of the ‘385 patent each refer to either a "relaxed coil capable of

being multiply folded upon itself" or a "deformable object capable of being multiply folded upon

itself.” Dependent claims 3 and 9 of the ‘498 patent each describe the "detachable elongate tip

portion" as a "substantially pliable segment adapted to be multiply folded upon itself." Although the

Court construed the term “relaxed coil” in the ‘385 patent in its October 7, 2003 Markman Order,

the “multiply folded” term has not been construed by the Court.

Defendant argues the statements made by the USPTO examiner in the NIRC constitute new

intrinsic evidence that warrants construction of the “multiply folded” term. (Def.’s Mot. at 3-4.) 

Defendant contends the examiner construed “multiply folded upon itself” to exclude prebiased coils

or coils of a predetermined shape. (Def.’s Mot. at 1.) According to Defendant, this new evidence is

significant because Defendant’s products employ prebiased coils. (Def.’s Mot. at 1.) Defendant

maintains its products would not fall within the asserted claims containing such a limitation if the

examiner’s construction is adopted. (Def.’s Mot. at 1.)

Plaintiffs oppose construction of the “multiply folded” term for numerous reasons. First,

Plaintiffs argue the claims and specifications of the ‘385 and ‘498 patents make it clear the claimed

coils include coils that have a prebiased shape. Second, Plaintiffs contend Defendant has taken the

examiner’s statements out of context and that the examiner really did not construe the claims of the

‘498 patent to exclude prebiased coils. Finally, Plaintiffs contend the Court previously rejected

Defendant’s argument that the claims exclude prebiased coils when it construed the term “relaxed

coil” in its October 7, 2003 Markman Order. The Court, as Plaintiffs note, said “a prebiased coil is

considered a relaxed coil as long after the coil is deployed in the vascular cavity the coil results in a

shape that loosely deforms to the interior shape.” (Docket No. 177 at 18.)

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 884 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 5
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 4

Despite the arguments Plaintiffs advance as to why the Court should not order claim

construction of the “multiply folded” term, the Court is not convinced it should refrain from

construing this additional term. Plaintiffs may be correct in that the claims and specification of the

‘385 and ‘498 patents indicate the claimed coils may have a prebiased shape, but the Court finds this

is an issue that should be resolved through further construction of the claim terms. Additionally, the

Court does not find its previous construction of “relaxed coil” in the ‘385 patent obviates the need

to construe the “multiply folded” term, which appears in both the ‘385 and ‘498 patents.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Claim Construction of Additional Claim

Terms. The parties shall submit supplemental briefs regarding construction of the “multiply folded”

term on or before July 11, 2006. Such briefs shall be no longer than twelve (12) pages in length, not

including exhibits. Any reply briefs shall be no longer than five (5) pages in length and filed on or

before July 18, 2006.

Dated: June 27, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 884 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Christopher T. Holding cholding@goodwinprocter.com

David T. Pritikin dpritikin@sidley.com

Edward V. Anderson evanderson@sidley.com

Georgia K. Van Zanten gvanzanten@sidley.com

Hugh A. Abrams habrams@sidley.com

J. Anthony Downs jdowns@goodwinprocter.com

Julie Lynn Fieber jfieber@flk.com

Lisa Anne Schneider lschneider@sidley.com

Marc A. Cavan mcavan@sidley.com

Matthew T. Powers mpowers@sidley.com

Michael Francis Kelleher mkelleher@flk.com

Patrick E. Premo ppremo@fenwick.com

Paul F. Ware pware@goodwinprocter.com

Roland Schwillinski rschwillinski@goodwinprocter.com

Stephanie Pauline Koh skoh@sidley.com

Susan E. Bower sbower@sidley.com

Teague I. Donahey tdonahey@sidley.com

Tracy J. Phillips tphillips@sidley.com

Dated: June 27, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 884 Filed 06/27/06 Page 5 of 5