Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01474/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01474-24/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

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 

SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 5, 2006, the Court conducted a hearing in accordance with Markman v.

Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), to construe an additional phrase which is used in

Claims 3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,010,498 patent ("the '498 Patent") and Claims 8 and 33 of U.S.

Patent No. 5,895,385 ("the '385 Patent"). This Order sets forth the Court's construction of the

phrases at issue.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Claim Term in Dispute: "adapted to"

Claim 3 of the '498 Patent provides:

The combination of claim 1 wherein said detachable elongate tip portion is a long and

substantially pliable segment adapted to be multiply folded upon itself to

substantially pack said body cavity.

('498 Patent, Col. 13:15-18.)

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 945 Filed 12/20/06 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 2

The parties dispute the proper construction of the phrase "adapted to." Similar use of the

phrase "adapted to" appears in Claim 9 of the '498 Patent and Claims 8 and 33 of the '385 Patent. 

For example, Claim 8 provides:

The improvement of claim 7 wherein said elongate distal tip is a long and

substantially pliable segment adapted to be multiply folded upon itself to

sufficiently occupy said body cavity to impede fluid flow therein.

('385 Patent, Col. 13:40-43.)

B. Principles of Claim Construction

A principle of patent claim construction is that the words of a claim are to be given their

ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning that the words would have to a person of

ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13

(Fed. Cir. 2005). A person skilled in the art is deemed to have read the claims and written

description and to have knowledge of any special meaning and usage of the words used in the

claims. Id. at 1313. Thus, in the claim construction process, the Court should start by reviewing

these same resources to derive definitions for the words and phrases in the claims. Id.

C. Proposed Definitions

Both parties contend that the phrase "adapted to" is an ordinary and customary phrase and

should be given its ordinary and customary meaning. (See Plaintiffs' Brief Regarding Claim

Construction of the "Adapted To" Claim Term, "Pls.' Br.," Docket Item No. 930, at 3; Defendant's

Brief in Support of Claim Construction of the Phrase "Adapted To," "Def.'s Br.," Docket Item No.

931, at 2.) However, they proffer different meanings for the phrase both based on dictionary

definitions.

Plaintiffs Boston Scientific Corp. and Target Therapeutics, Inc. contend that "adapted to"

should be construed to mean "configured to" to convey that the elongate tip portion was designed

(i.e., configured) to multiply fold upon itself. (Pls.' Br. at 3.) Defendant Cordis Corp. ("Defendant")

contends that the term should be construed to mean "suitable for" because that is the plain and

ordinary meaning of "adapted to." (Def.'s Br. at 1.) 

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 945 Filed 12/20/06 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

1

 The term "capable of" is also used in Claims 15, 32, and 38 of the '385 Patent.

3

D. Construction of Phrase

In accordance with the principles of claim construction articulated in Phillips, the Court turns

first to the intrinsic evidence to construe the phrase "adapted to."

Claim 7 of the '385 Patent discloses an elongate distal tip "capable of"1

 being multiply folded

upon itself:

An apparatus for use in occluding a body cavity comprising: . . . a

detachable elongate distal coupled to said wire, said elongate distal tip

being a relaxed coil capable of being multiply folded upon itself.

('385 Patent, Col. 13:33-39.) Claim 8, which depends from Claim 7, claims an elongate distal tip

"adapted to" be multiply folded upon itself:

The improvement of claim 7 wherein said elongate distal tip is a long and

substantially pliable segment adapted to be multiply folded upon itself to

sufficiently occupy said body cavity to impede fluid flow therein.

('385 Patent, Col. 13:40-43.)

Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, there is a presumption that when different words

or phrases are used in separate claims, they are presumed to have different meanings. See Comark

Communications Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998). There is no dispute

between the parties that the phrase "capable of" means "having the ability to." (See Stipulation

Regarding the Court's August 21, 2006 Order Re: Claim Construction of the "Multiply Folded"

Term, Docket Item No. 928.) An object may be "capable of" multiply folding upon itself, even if it

is not intentionally and specifically made in a way that would cause it to multiply fold. Thus,

"capable of" is a broader term than "adapted to." 

The definition asserted by Defendant Cordis, namely "suitable for" is similar to "capable of." 

That is, a device could be suitable for multiply folding upon itself, without being intentionally and

specifically made in a way that would cause it to multiply fold. Moreover, Defendant's proposed

definition of "suitable for" does not follow from a plain dictionary definition of the word "adapt." 

Widely accepted dictionary definitions of "adapt" are "to make fit (as for a specific new use or

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 945 Filed 12/20/06 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

situation)," (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 13 (10th ed. 1998)), and "to make suitable to

a specific use or situation." American Heritage College Dictionary 15 (3d ed. 1993). No dictionary

that Defendant has cited defines "adapt to" to mean "suitable for." 

On the other hand, Plaintiffs' proposed definition of "configured to" embraces the concept of

a device intentionally and specifically made to act in a certain way. A widely accepted dictionary

definition of the word "configure" means "[t]o design, arrange, set up, or shape with a view to

specific applications or uses." American Heritage Dictionary 386 (4th ed. 2000). The written

description of the '498 patent supports the definition of "configured to" because it discloses

embodiments in which specific types of materials and wire dimensions are used to make coils that

act in certain ways. ('498 Patent, Col. 9:6-13.)

III. CONCLUSION

The Court construes "adapted to" to mean "configured to."

Dated: December 20, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 945 Filed 12/20/06 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

Patrick S. Thompson pthompson@goodwinprocter.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: December 20, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 945 Filed 12/20/06 Page 5 of 5