Opinion ID: 806478
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Content of the Chariker-Jeter References

Text: The Chariker-Jeter references, as explained above, disclose a system for treating wounds that are complicated by a fistula. J.A. 10043. The parties dispute whether these references disclose the treatment of a 37 KINETIC CONCEPTS v. SMITH & NEPHEW wound within the meaning of the patents, and if it does disclose treatment of such wounds, whether the disclosed device used negative pressure to treat the wounds. With the exception of the Chariker-Jeter public use, the two Chariker-Jeter publications indisputably deal only with the treatment of “[p]atients with draining wounds and fistulae.” J.A. 10050. In Blue Sky, we held that the term wound, as used in these patents “does not cover the fistulae described in the [Chariker-Jeter] publications . . . .” 554 F.3d at 1018. Despite our conclusion that the injuries treated in the Chariker-Jeter publications are not “wounds” within the meaning of these patents, S&N presented testimony attempting to establish that the references disclosed such treatment. J.A. 22348:1–49:12; J.A. 22028:7–30:6. Regarding the Chariker-Jeter public use, which was not addressed in Blue Sky, S&N proffered the testimony of Dr. Chariker who, while he was a resident, helped treat Mr. Aderholt with the system disclosed in the CharikerJeter publications. In this testimony, Dr. Chariker testified that he used the system to heal Mr. Aderholt with negative pressure. J.A. 22032:2–38:11. Wake Forest presented testimony to contradict S&N’s evidence. Its expert testified that all of the patients mentioned in the Chariker-Jeter publications had fistulae, and therefore, that the publications do not disclose the treatment of wounds within the district court’s construction. J.A. 21441:1–7; J.A. 22672:11–23. In fact, on cross examination Dr. Chariker admitted that neither of the Chariker-Jeter publications discloses wounds not involving a fistula. J.A. 22045:15–25. Wake Forest’s experts testified, moreover, that the device disclosed in the Chariker-Jeter references did not use negative pressure to treat wounds. J.A. 22671:12–91:24; J.A. 21439:1– 41:22; J.A. 22869:13–70:21. And, Wake Forest’s expert KINETIC CONCEPTS v. SMITH & NEPHEW 38 testified that the Chariker-Jeter publications actually taught to limit granulization, which is directly contrary to the purpose of the ’651 and ’081 patents. J.A. 21441:12– 19 (“So according to their document, they seem to want to limit granulation tissue formation.”); J.A. 22673:11–12 (“[Drs. Chariker and Jeter] actually wanted to inhibit granulation tissue.”). Significantly, Dr. Chariker conceded that he “didn’t publish anything about negative pressure wound therapy regarding fistulas or nonfistulas.” J.A. 22046:8–9. Similarly, Dr. Jeter admitted on cross examination that she never suggested using the disclosed device if there was nothing to drain. J.A. 22147:8–11. With respect to the Chariker-Jeter public use, Wake Forest offered testimony that Mr. Aderholt’s wound involved a fistula, so it was not a wound within the meaning of the patents. J.A. 22696:4–13; J.A. 22698:22–99:5; J.A. 22898:22–99:8. On cross examination, moreover, Dr. Chariker refused to say that Mr. Aderholt did not have a fistula; he only stated that one was never diagnosed. J.A. 22057:23; J.A. 22058:4; J.A. 22085:2–6. In addition, Wake Forest’s expert testified that, based on his reading of Mr. Aderholt’s operative notes and pictures of his treatment, the system used on Mr. Aderholt was not the system disclosed in the Chariker-Jeter publications. J.A. 22714:25–15:9. Wake Forest’s expert also testified that the Chariker-Jeter public use did not have a seal capable of maintaining negative pressure because Mr. Aderholt’s skin had several sump drains that freely let air flow. J.A. 2900:14–02:14. In other words, his wound was not healed with negative pressure. J.A. 2712:13–14:19. Finally, Wake Forest’s experts testified that use of the drainage system disclosed in the Chariker-Jeter publications was discontinued when the fistula closed or substan39 KINETIC CONCEPTS v. SMITH & NEPHEW tial drainage from the fistula stopped, irrespective of the state of any wound healing. J.A. 22869:20–70:12; J.A. 21438:13–39:18; J.A. 22672:24–74:4; J.A. 22870:3–5 (“In every single case, every single case that they show in the book chapter and in the article, the minute the fistula stopped draining, they got rid of their device.”). Dr. Chariker conceded this fact on cross examination. J.A. 22062:17–20. This, again, reasonably could be deemed a teaching away from continued long-term use of the device, as directed by the ’081 and ’651 patents. Again, because of the procedural posture of this case, we must assume that the jury found Wake Forest’s experts credible and persuasive. Rather than credit this testimony, however, the district court impermissibly reweighed witness credibility, concluding that Wake Forest’s expert’s testimony that Mr. Aderholt had a fistula was “completely unsupported by the evidence.” JMOL Order at 32. This was error. See Blue Sky, 554 F.3d at 1020. On the basis of this credited testimony, there is substantial evidence to support the finding that: (1) none of the Chariker-Jeter references discloses treatment of a wound within the meaning of the patents (as distinct from a fistula or pus pocket); (2) the Chariker-Jeter references do not disclose use of negative pressure to heal or treat wounds 9 ; (3) the Chariker-Jeter publications teach away from promoting healing by using negative pressure; (4) 9 This is the same conclusion we reached in Blue Sky with respect to the Chariker-Jeter references. 554 F.3d at 1020 (“[W]e find that the testimony of KCI’s witnesses was sufficient to allow the jury to reach the conclusion that the Chariker–Jeter method was not used to ‘treat a wound with negative pressure’ as required by the claims.”). On this point, the evidence presented in this case by Wake Forest and KCI was just as strong as the evidence presented in Blue Sky. We, of course, base our conclusion on the evidence in the current record. KINETIC CONCEPTS v. SMITH & NEPHEW 40 the Chariker-Jeter public use did not involve the device disclosed in the Chariker-Jeter publications; and (5) the public use did not involve a seal capable of maintaining negative pressure. Finally, with respect to the method claims, substantial evidence supports the finding that negative pressure was not maintained until the wound progressed toward a selected stage of healing.