Opinion ID: 785735
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Description of the Accused Device as a Large and Wide-Area Ablation System

Text: 96 Summit argues that Nidek's public statements contained in its product literature that its EC-5000 was a wide-area ablation system are tantamount to an admission of infringement of the Azema '330 patent. Essentially, Summit contends that Nidek's references to its accused EC-5000 as a large-area or wide-area ablation system, coupled with Dr. Oesterlin's testimony, inherently indicate that the EC-5000 is able to cover the entire area of the cornea one wishes to operate upon with a single pulse of a laser. JMOL Order, 2002 WL 31844693, at . However, Dr. Oesterlin's cross-examination reveals the opposite conclusion: 97 Q. But your understanding is that wide-area ablation means a single pulse of the laser will cover the entire maximum area you wish to operate upon with the laser; right? 98 A. That's right. 99 Q. And you believe that the Marshall patent and the Azema patent are wide-area ablation systems; right? 100 A. Yes. 101 Q. And the [Nidek] EC-5000 is, too, is it not? 102 A. No. 103    104 Q. If we assume that the EC-5000 is a large area ablation system with the definition you have for that term, that the EC-5000 must create responsive light on the eye as big as the entire area, maximum area you wish to ablate; right? 105 A. If you make this assumption, yes. 106 Q. Now, we can make that assumption if we assume that the pulses in a scan are combined together to form a unified beam; right? 107 A. I already said yesterday that this is not possible and what is combined is the effect of the pulses within one scan. 108 Trial Tr. day 9, p. 19, l. 14 — p. 20, l. 20 (emphases added). Although Dr. Oesterlin's definition of wide-area ablation systems was consistent with the district court's construction, Trial Tr. day 9, p. 19, ll. 14-17, he explicitly stated that Nidek's EC-5000 was not a wide-area ablation system within that definition. Instead, as discussed above, Dr. Oesterlin emphasized that it was physically impossible to combine the light spots from the individual laser pulses. Trial Tr. day 9, p. 20, ll. 15-20. Because the area of the light spots from the individual laser pulses did not cover the entire area one wishes to operate upon, the evidence does not support a conclusion of infringement by the EC-5000 under the district court's construction. 109 We have considered the remainder of Summit's multiplicity of arguments based on various snippets of evidence, and conclude that individually and collectively these arguments fail to overcome the evidentiary shortcomings of its infringement case. 110 Because Summit failed to present more than a mere scintilla of evidence that Nidek infringed the Azema '330 patent, the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement is affirmed. 3. Nidek's Alternative Argument 111 As an alternative basis to support the judgment of non-infringement of the Marshall '093 patent, Nidek challenges some of the district court's claim construction rulings. In light of our affirmance of the district court's judgment, Nidek's alternative argument is moot and need not be addressed.