Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05669/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05669-53/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

1

 (See Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment for Invalidity of the Patents in Suit for

Failure to Comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 1 and 2, hereafter, “Defendants’ Motion,” filed under

seal, redacted version at Docket Item No. 610.)

2

 The Court denominates Defendants’ Cross-Motion as one for partial summary judgment

because it does not completely dispose of a claim.

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

The Regents of the University of California,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Micro Therapeutics, Inc. and Dendron GmbH,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 03-05669 JW 

AUGUST 28, 2007 ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

AND INVALIDITY AS INDEFINITE

CLAIMS RECITING A SEVERABLE TIP

“OF A WIRE” AND ALSO RECITING A

TIP “COUPLED TO” A WIRE

In this patent infringement action by Plaintiff, The Regents of the University of California

(“The Regents” or “Plaintiff”) against Defendants Micro Therapeutics Inc. ("MTI") and its wholly

owned subsidiary Dendron GmbH (collectively, "Defendants"), Defendants have moved for

summary judgment that enumerated patents are invalid on multiple grounds.1

 The Court conducted

a hearing on June 5, 2007. The Court has chosen to address the grounds separately. This Order

addresses Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Partial2

 Summary Judgment of Non-infringement and

Invalidity on the ground of indefiniteness as to every patent claim which recite “a wire” as an

element, and which recite in a subsequent element “a severable distal tip of said wire,” but which

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 879 Filed 08/28/07 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

3

 The structure is present in the following: Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 14 of the ‘578 Patent;

Claims 2, 3, 5-7 of the ‘126 Patent; Claims 25-30 and 35 of the ‘133 Patent. Defendants also cite

Claims 1 and 9 of the ‘126 Patent and Claims 16 or 20 of the ‘133 Patent because they share this

same structure. However, although these Claims recite a wire, they all recite a tip “coupled to” the

wire and do not recite a tip as part “of the wire.” The Court does not regard these latter Claims as

containing the allegedly ambiguous structure. Therefore, the Court regards Defendants’ motion as

improper with respect to Claims 1 and 9 of the ‘126 Patent and Claims 16 or 20 of the ‘133 Patent

and on that basis excludes, them from its analysis. 

4

 (See Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the

Patents-in-Suit for Failure to Comply with 35 U.S.C. Section 112, Paragraphs 1 & 2 as to the Best

Mode Requirement and Indefiniteness, Docket Item No. 789.)

2

recite still another element “a coupling between said distal tip and said wire.”3

 Defendants contend

that these claims are ambiguous because they are internally inconsistent: in the first element the tip

is recited as part of the wire; in the second element, the tip is recited as separate from the wire,

albeit connected to the wire by a coupling. Defendants contend that this inconsistency renders the

claims indefinite. (Defendants’ Motion 19-20.)

The Court applies the legal standards articulated in its July 9, 2007 Order.4

 In particular, the

purpose of the definiteness requirement is to “ensure that the claims delineate the scope of the

invention using language that adequately notifies the public of the patentee's right to exclude.”

Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347. (Fed. Cir. 2005). Claims are

considered indefinite when they are “not amenable to construction or are insolubly ambiguous. 

Thus, the definiteness of claim terms depends on whether those terms can be given any reasonable

meaning.” Id. Indefiniteness requires a determination whether those skilled in the art would

understand what is claimed. In the face of an allegation of indefiniteness, general principles of

claim construction apply. Id. at 1348. In that regard, claim construction involves consideration of

primarily the intrinsic evidence, i.e., the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution

history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

 The issue raised by Defendants is whether claims which recite that the tip is part of the

wire is insolubly ambiguous if those claims also recite that the tip is connected to the wire. The

Court finds that while on their face these claims might appear to recite that the wire and its tip are in

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 879 Filed 08/28/07 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

one element one part (“tip of the wire”) and in another element two parts (“tip and the wire”), the

apparent ambiguity is resolvable. 

In the context of the ‘578 Patent, the Court has construed the word “wire” as a coined term: 

“the term ‘wire’ should be understood to collectively include both guidewires and tips and simply

wires without distinct tip structures.” (See Order Following Claims Construction Hearing; Setting

Case Management Conference at 5, Docket Item No. 270.) Thus, each claim must be examined to

determine whether the inventors are using the word “wire” to mean with or without a tip structure. 

Accordingly, with respect to each of the challenged patents, a person of skill in the art

reading the intrinsic evidence would understand that each patent claim which recites a “severable tip

of said wire” or words to that effect is reciting an apparatus having a tip structure which is “coupled

to”and hence part of the wire for purposes of deployment and “severable” from and hence

separate from the wire for purposes of detachment. The consistency of this construction can be

seen from Claim 12 of the ‘133 Patent, which provides:

An apparatus for use in formation of an occlusion within a body cavity comprising:

a wire having at least an electrolyzable distal portion; and 

a separable elongate tip portion of said wire coupled to and extending

from said wire, said separable elongate tip portion adapted to form said occlusion in

said body cavity and being adapted for insertion within said body cavity, said

separable elongate tip portion being resistant to electrolysis compared to said distal

portion of said wire, said separable elongate tip portion being coupled to said wire by

said electrolyzable distal portion,

whereby occlusion of said body cavity is achieved.

(‘133 Patent, Col. 13:37-49.) In a single element, Claim 12 recites that the elongate tip portion is

both part of the wire and coupled to the wire. However, a person of ordinary skill would

understand that the phrases “part of” and “coupled to” are reciting that the tip structure is part of the

wire for delivery into the body cavity, and is also separate from the wire in the sense that it is

separable after insertion into a body cavity. 

In sum, Defendants have not proved by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged

claims are invalid for indefiniteness. The claim language and the specification make clear an

unambiguous meaning of the claim language. Defendants’ cross-motion that the challenged claims

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 879 Filed 08/28/07 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

are invalid as indefinite is DENIED. The heading of Defendants’ motion recites that the motion is

made on the alternative ground that the accused products do not infringe the challenged claims. 

However, Defendants have failed to present any evidence to support its motion of non-infringement

this ground. Accordingly, Defendants’ cross-motion is also DENIED on this ground.

Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-infringement and

Invalidity for Indefiniteness of cited Claims of the ‘578, the ‘126 and the ‘133 Patents are DENIED. 

Dated: August 28, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 879 Filed 08/28/07 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

Charles G. Curtis ccurtis@hewm.com

Chien-Ju Alice Chen achen@Fenwick.Com

Christopher T. Holding cholding@goodwinprocter.com

Colin G. Sandercock csandercock@proskauer.com

David J. Harth dharth@hewm.com

Gabrielle E. Bina gbina@hewm.com

J. Anthony Downs jdowns@goodwinprocter.com

John S. Skilton jskilton@hewm.com

John S. Skilton jskilton@hewm.com

Julie Lynn Fieber jfieber@flk.com

Lynn H. Pasahow lpasahow@fenwick.com

Michael Francis Kelleher mkelleher@flk.com

Michael J. Shuster mshuster@fenwick.com

Michael K. Plimack mplimack@hewm.com

Michelle M. Umberger mumberger@hewm.com

Patrick E. Premo ppremo@fenwick.com

Roland Schwillinski rschwillinski@goodwinprocter.com

Sarah C. Walkenhorst swalkenhorst@hewm.com

Wendy Lynn Bjerknes Wbjerknes@fenwick.com

Dated: August 28, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 879 Filed 08/28/07 Page 5 of 5