Opinion ID: 210959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: MAS Model

Text: 58 On cross-appeal, Medtronic argues that the district court erred in denying its motion for JMOL of non-infringement of the MAS model because DePuy failed to offer evidence that the MAS model possessed an equivalent to the pressed against limitation that performed substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. Specifically, Medtronic acknowledges that DePuy offered function-way-result evidence related to the hollow spherically-shaped portion limitation, but argues that no function-way-result evidence was offered demonstrating that pressing against an edge of a hollow portion is the equivalent of pressing against a hollow portion. Medtronic also argues that the court erred in denying its motion because the jury's finding of infringement by equivalence vitiated the spherically-shaped limitation. Medtronic argues that here, as in Tronzo, DePuy's expert offered a theory that any shape would meet the spherically-shaped limitation, which reads spherically-shaped out of the claim. 59 DePuy counters that it introduced expert testimony that the MAS device possessed an equivalent to the spherically-shaped limitation and that the screw head literally presses against that equivalent. DePuy also counters that its expert did not testify to an any shape will do theory of equivalence. 60 Medtronic's arguments are unpersuasive. First, as discussed in Part II.A, supra, the proper construction of hollow spherically-shaped portion includes the edge of that portion. There is no dispute that DePuy presented sufficient evidence that the MAS models possessed the hollow spherically-shaped portion or its equivalent. DePuy also presented evidence that the MAS model literally meets the pressed against limitation when its expert testified that the screw head presses against an edge of a hollow spherically-shaped portion or the edge of an equivalent. That evidence, together with reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict, make clear that Medtronic was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue. 61 Second, DePuy's expert did not offer an any shape will do theory of equivalence similar to the theory offered in Tronzo. In Tronzo, the expert did not identify a specific element in the accused device that was an equivalent to the generally conical limitation, but rather testified that any shape would be an equivalent to such a limitation. 156 F.3d at 1160. Here, DePuy's expert testified that the specific hollow shape of the MAS model was equivalent to the spherically-shaped limitation according to the function-way-result test. The any shape testimony cited by Medtronic was a reference to earlier deposition testimony on cross-examination and ignores the witness's explanation on redirect. On redirect, the expert explained that at the deposition, he believed the question was directed to whether the spherically-shaped limitation had to be literally present in an accused device. His answer reflected his belief that an equivalent would meet the same limitation. Such an exchange at trial does not constitute an assertion or admission that any shape meets the spherically-shaped limitation. Because DePuy did not offer a legally insufficient theory of equivalence, Medtronic is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue.