Opinion ID: 2653546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Otto Bock owns U.S. Patent 6,726,726 (the “’726 patent”), which is directed to an apparatus and method for managing residual limb volume in an artificial limb. ’726 patent col. 1 ll. 15–18. The claimed invention prevents volume loss in the amputee’s residual limb that results from weight-bearing forces placed on that limb. Id. The ’726 patent describes a vacuum socket for amputees that incorporates, inter alia, a liner, a single socket, and a vacuum source to draw the residual limb into firm and total contact with the socket. Id. col. 4 ll. 39–60. The ’726 patent further incorporates by reference U.S. Patent Application 09/534,274 (the “’274 application”), which discloses a combination multi-chamber piston/cylinder pump and shock absorber to maintain the vacuum. Id. col. 13 ll. 7–8. Claim 1 is exemplary and reads as follows: 1. In an artificial limb for amputees who have a residual limb, an apparatus for managing residual limb volume, wherein application of a vacuum prevents loss of residual limb volume due OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE LP v. OSSUR HF 3 to weight-bearing pressures and locks the residual limb to the artificial limb without causing swelling of the residual limb, the apparatus compris- ing: (a) a flexible liner having a cavity with a volume less than that of the residual limb, whereby the liner is tensioned into a total contact relation- ship with the residual limb; (b) a single socket with a volume and shape to re- ceive a substantial portion of the residual limb and the liner, the socket having a cavity adapted to receive the residual limb and the liner; (c) a vacuum source connected to the socket cavity between the liner and the socket, wherein ap- plication of the vacuum source to the socket cavity draws the residual limb and liner into firm and total contact with the socket, thereby locking the residual limb to the socket without causing swelling of the residual limb into the socket; (d) a seal means for sealing the socket cavity; (e) a means to maintain a vacuum in the socket cavity, in the presence of some air leakage past the seal means; and (f) further comprising a thin sheath between the liner and the socket, to assist the even distribu- tion of vacuum in the cavity about the liner; wherein application of the vacuum source of the socket cavity prevents the loss of residual limb volume due to weight-bearing pressures. ’726 patent col. 14 ll. 35–65 (emphases added). Claims 6, 9, 15, and 18, which are dependent, also require a “seal means” and a “means to maintain a vacuum.” Id. col. 15 l. 4 OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE LP v. OSSUR HF 9–col. 16 l. 8. Those claim limitations are crucial to this appeal. Claims 1 and 10 recite a “seal means for sealing the socket cavity,” and claims 1 and 11 recite a “means to maintain [a] vacuum in the [socket] cavity. ’726 patent col. 14 l. 55–col. 15 l. 50. Claims 6 and 18 depend from Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and further limit the “seal means” to an “annular seal.” Id. col. 15 l. 9–col. 16 l. 17. Claims 9 and 15 depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively, and further limit the “means to maintain a vacuum” to a “weight-actuated vacuum pump.” Id. col. 15 l. 20–col. 16 l. 7. Össur makes mechanical vacuum pump prosthetic products, including the Iceross Seal-In® V liner and UnityTM vacuum suspension module. Otto Bock, 2013 WL 4828791 at . The Iceross Seal-In® V liner compensates for the volume fluctuations and shape changes of an amputee’s residual limb by expanding and exerting pressure against the interior socket wall. A “dual-seal” mechanism prevents the outer surface of the Iceross Seal-In® V liner from fully contacting the sockets, resulting in varying levels of pressure from the liner against the socket. Össur’s UnityTM module uses a heel-actuated membrane to create a vacuum. The UnityTM module in combination with the Iceross Seal-In® V liner can be used to create an artificial limb for amputees. Otto Bock sued Össur for infringement of claims 6, 9, 15, and 18 of the ’726 patent by importing, selling, and offering for sale and use in the United States the following combination of Össur products: (1) the Iceross SealIn® V liner; (2) the Re-Flex Rotate Foot or Re-Flex Shock; and (3) the UnityTM vacuum pump module and valve (collectively the “Accused Products”). Id. at . Otto Bock moved for a preliminary injunction. Id. at . The district court construed the two means-plus- function claim limitations pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE LP v. OSSUR HF 5 and found that Otto Bock was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its infringement claim.  Id. at –6. Agreeing with Otto Bock’s expert Dr. Gard, the court construed “seal means” as an annular seal with a narrow ring around the liner that has a rectangular cross-section. Id. The court then concluded that Otto Bock failed to clearly show that Össur’s Seal-In® V liner’s membrane seal performed the sealing function in substantially the same way as the annular seal disclosed in the ’726 patent. Id. at . Next, the district court construed “means to maintain a vacuum.” Id. The court noted that the “weight- actuated vacuum pump” limitation in claims 9 and 15 might cover an indefinite number of structures, but found that the term should be informed by the written description’s disclosure that a vacuum-maintaining means may take the form of a “weight-actuated vacuum pump as disclosed in [the ’274 application].” Id. at . The court then concluded that Össur’s UnityTM module and the weight-actuated vacuum pump as disclosed in the ’274 application were neither structurally identical nor equivalent. Id. at –6. Accordingly, the district court found that Otto Bock was unlikely to prevail in showing that Össur’s accused products satisfied the “seal means” limitation in claims 6, 9, 15, and 18 and the “means to maintain a vacuum” limitation in claims 6, 9, and 15 because Össur’s products used a different seal means and did not use a pis- ton/cylinder pump as a means to maintain a vacuum. Id.  Paragraph 6 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with newly designated § 112(f) when § 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, took effect on September 16, 2012. Because this case was filed before that date, we will refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112. 6 OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE LP v. OSSUR HF at . The court thus denied Otto Bock’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Id. Otto Bock appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).