Opinion ID: 675261
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevant History

Text: 6 Dr. Freeman's original Patent No. 4,077,071 (the '071 patent) issued with claims 1-9. His Reissue patent No. 31,640 (the reissue patent) issued with original claims 1-9 and new claims 10-22. On October 5, 1984, Dr. Freeman sued the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) alleging infringement of certain claims of the reissue patent, including claims 10, 11 and 21 at issue here. On May 8, 1987, 3M filed a request for reexamination of the reissue patent which was granted by the PTO. However, the PTO sua sponte suspended the reexamination proceeding upon commencement of the infringement trial. 3 7 The trial court held that the asserted claims of the reissue patent were invalid and not infringed by 3M's IOLs. Freeman v. Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co., 693 F.Supp. 134, 9 USPQ2d 1111 (D.Del.1988). In its discussion of infringement, the district court addressed the phrase at least a degree of buoyant uplift in claims 10, 11, and 21 of the reissue patent stating that [m]ost of the trial involved interpreting this phrase and attempting to distinguish it from [other language] of Claim 1. Freeman, 693 F.Supp. at 142, 9 USPQ2d at 1119. The district court also noted the different interpretations of this phrase advanced by the parties: 8 Freeman argues that the phrase means the result of adding any amount of buoyant support materials, thus reducing the density and weight of the device by any amount, even if the reduction is not to a state of neutral buoyancy. 3M, on the other hand, argues that an object with buoyant uplift must possess neutral or positive buoyancy. It further contends that the phrase at least a degree of means a small amount of buoyant uplift, rather than something that changes the definition of buoyant uplift. 9 Id. 10 After discussing the specification, the prosecution history, and the testimony of the experts, the trial court concluded that 3M's interpretation is the correct meaning of the phrase. Thus, 'buoyant uplift' requires at least neutral buoyancy. Id. The district court stated that such an interpretation was supported by the specification and by the Examiner's belief that merely reducing the density of the IOL device did not necessarily produce the claimed buoyant uplift, as argued by Dr. Freeman. The court also opined that such an interpretation gave meaning to the claims. Freeman, 693 F.Supp. at 144, 9 USPQ2d at 1121. 11 Based on this claim interpretation, the district court held that 3M did not infringe claims 10, 11, 21, or 22. Specifically, the district court stated: 12 None of the IOLs infringe any of the reissue claims, however, because none of them have support or buoyancy means that provide at least a degree of buoyant uplift to the lens.... If the Court were to construe these claims broadly, as Freeman desires, to cover any reduction in weight due to the addition of buoyancy means, then all of the IOLs would infringe Claims 21 and 22, and all but Style 70 would infringe Claims 10 and 11.... However, because the Court has found this construction to be improper, none of the IOLs infringe claims 10, 11, 21, or 22. 13 Freeman, 693 F.Supp. at 145, 9 USPQ2d at 1121-22. 14 Dr. Freeman appealed the judgment of the district court to this court and argued that the district court's above finding of noninfringement was based on a misinterpretation of claims, 10, 11, 21, and 22. Dr. Freeman argued as he did in the district court that the phrase at least a degree of buoyant uplift is satisfied if the support means itself (as distinguished from the entire IOL device) is buoyant in the aqueous humor, thereby imparting a degree of buoyant uplift to the lens and making the implant lighter than the lens by even the smallest degree. 15 This court, on appeal, affirmed the district court's finding of noninfringement and held that the district court's interpretation of the claims was not erroneous and that the court's finding of no infringement was not clearly erroneous. The holding of invalidity was vacated. Freeman v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 13 USPQ2d 1250, 1252, 1989 WL 86448 (Fed.Cir.1989) (non-precedential), reh'g denied, 1989 WL 86448, 1989 U.S.App. LEXIS 14,958 (Fed.Cir. Sept. 30, 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070-71, 110 S.Ct. 1794, 108 L.Ed.2d 794 (1990).