Opinion ID: 4523913
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “configured to”

Text: Claims 1 and 22 of the ’842 patent and claims 7, 12, 35 and 37 of the ’533 patent recite “a signal generator configured to generate” a therapy signal with set parameters and functions. Claim 1 of the ’842 patent is illustrative and recites:
a signal generator configured to generate a therapy signal having a frequency of 10 kHz, an amplitude up to 6 mA, and pluses having a pulse width be- tween 30 microseconds and 35 microseconds; and an implantable signal delivery device electrically coupleable to the signal generator and configured to be implanted within a patient’s epidural space to deliver the therapy signal from the signal generator the patient’s spinal cord. (emphasis added). Nevro argued before the district court that the term “configured to” means “designed to.” Boston Scientific disagreed, arguing that if a construction is necessary, “configured to” should be construed as “requir[ing] no further configuration to.” At the Markman hearing, the district court sua sponte suggested that “‘configure[d] to’ maybe is indefinite.” J.A. 12506. After the parties filed supplemental briefing on the district court’s newly raised indefiniteness theory, the district court concluded that “configured to” could be “reasonably construed . . . to mean one of two things: (1) the signal generator, as a matter of hardware and firmware, has the capacity to generate the described electrical signals (either without further programing or after further programming by the clinical programming software); or (2) the signal generator has been Case: 18-2220 Document: 69 Page: 10 Filed: 04/09/2020 10 NEVRO CORP. v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. programmed by the clinical programmer to generate the described electrical signals.” J.A. 6. Because the district court determined that “configured to” is susceptible to differing constructions, it held the term renders indefinite claims 1 and 22 of the ’842 patent and claims 7, 12, 35 and 37 of the ’533 patent. Nevro argues that that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in holding the claims indefinite. We agree. The test for indefiniteness is whether the claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. The test is not merely whether a claim is susceptible to differing interpretations. Such a test would render nearly every claim term indefinite so long as a party could manufacture a plausible construction. In fact, the Supreme Court declined to adopt such a rule in Nautilus. Id. at 909 (declining to adopt a test rendering a patent invalid “when a claim is ‘ambiguous, such that readers could reasonably interpret the claim’s scope differently’”). Under the proper standard, we hold that the claim term “configured to” does not render the asserted claims indefinite. A person of ordinary skill would be reasonably certain that “a signal generator configured to generate” means “a signal generator programmed to generate.” The asserted claims contemplate that “configured to” requires programming the signal generator (i.e., setting parameters) to generate the claimed signals. For example, claim 37 of the ’533 patent recites a “signal generator configured to generate . . . wherein at least a portion of the therapy signal is at a frequency of 10 kHz, and at a current amplitude in a current amplitude range from 0.1 mA to 20 mA.” ’533 patent at Claim 37; see also ’125 patent at Claim 1 (reciting “a step for configuring the signal generator, including programming”). The specifications of the asserted patents confirm that “configured to” requires setting parameters. Case: 18-2220 Document: 69 Page: 11 Filed: 04/09/2020 NEVRO CORP. v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. 11 Indeed, the focus of the specifications is on setting the signal generator’s parameters; they are silent as to any other steps the inventors took to configure the signal generator. See, e.g., ’533 patent at 6:34–7:5 (distinguishing the claimed spinal cord stimulation systems from conventional systems based on the parameters used to generate the therapy signals). Moreover, in prosecuting a related patent application, U.S. Pat. App. 14/522,405, Nevro agreed with the examiner that “configured” means “programmed” as opposed to “programmable.” J.A. 12929. This is consistent with the prosecution history of the asserted ’842 patent, during which Nevro consistently distinguished the claimed invention from the prior art on the basis that the prior art did not disclose specific parameters for a signal generator. J.A. 12938–39 (distinguishing a prior art reference on the basis that it does not teach “the specific combination of therapy signal parameters in the claimed ranges”); see also J.A. 12947. Nevro contends that “configured to” should instead be construed as “designed to.” It argues that this construction is consistent with the specifications, which use the terms “configured” and “programmed” separately in the same sentence. See ’533 patent at 24:18. It also argues that its construction is consistent with our precedent, which it contends equates “adapted to” with “configured to,” “designed to” and “made to.” Appellant’s Br. 37 (citing, e.g., Aspex Eyewear, Inc., v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Nevro’s contentions are unavailing. The sentence from the specifications that Nevro relies upon merely states that “the patient will typically not feel a paresthesia, unless the system is configured and programmed to deliberately produce paresthesia in addition to the therapy signal.” ’533 patent at 24:15–20. The referenced programming and configuring relates only to the system; the sentence is silent regarding configuring the signal generator. And our construction of different claims in Case: 18-2220 Document: 69 Page: 12 Filed: 04/09/2020 12 NEVRO CORP. v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. different patents is insufficient to overcome the plain language of the claims and the specification here. See Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that a particular term, even the same term, “need not have the same meaning when used in an entirely separate patent, particularly one involving different technology”). Accordingly, we conclude the district court erred in holding indefinite the claims reciting the term “configured to” and we construe “configured to” to mean “programmed to.”