Opinion ID: 785735
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Spatial Combination of Individual Laser Pulses to Form a Composite Beam

Text: 73 Summit contends that even assuming the area of the cornea one wishes to operate upon is static and covers the entire area one wishes to operate upon throughout the procedure, Nidek's FDA submissions establish infringement. Specifically, Summit relies on Nidek's statement in a copy of a patent application submitted to the FDA that during scanning, individual [laser] pulses are combined and a uniform depth of ablation is achieved. Essentially, Summit argues that Nidek's device literally infringes because in the accused device, a series of pulses across the cornea are physically combined and cover the entire area of the cornea one wishes to operate upon. But the claim language requires the formation of  a light spot ... the area of said light spot having a maximum area at least as large as the area of the cornea desired to be operated upon. Azema '330 patent, col. 11, ll. 29-33 (emphasis added). Thus, Summit must establish that Nidek's device is capable of creating a single light spot, the maximum area of which is at least as large as the area of the cornea desired to be operated upon. 74 The FDA submission and all of Summit's proffered trial testimony concern the net effect of individual and separate laser pulses in an EC-5000 scan to achieve uniform ablation, not the physical combination that Summit urges. None of the witnesses testified that the individual laser pulses in a scan were physically combined to form a single spot of light required by the claim language and the district court's claim construction. At best, the testimony established that the net ablation effect of the individual light spots of each laser pulse covered the entire area of the cornea one wishes to operate upon. 75 Summit cites to Dr. Ohtsuki's cross-examination to support its assertion that individual laser pulses are physically combined, but his testimony reveals otherwise: 76 Q. And it's correct that in the EC-5000, the pulses are combined, isn't it? 77 A. The problem is in the word combined, I believe. There are ten pulses in a single scan. The result of those pulses is that a uniform depth is achieved, and that was the meaning in which I answered that question, I believe. 78 Q. Well, in the EC-5000, those ten pulses in a scan, when you're treating the maximum area you want to ablate, are combined together within a quarter second to cover the entire maximum area you wish to ablate, right? 79 A. As I said before, with respect to the ten pulses that are illuminated on the cornea, it is the result which is the combination, not the pulses of light which are the combination. 80 Trial Tr. day 5, p. 93, l. 22 — p. 94, l. 10 (emphasis added). 81 Summit's expert, Dr. Feld, asserted on direct examination that the pulses were physically, or spatially, combined: 82 A.... In addition, the composite beam of the EC-5000 which is composed of the spatially combined pulses, all of them together, is always as large or larger than the area that is wished to be operated upon. 83 Trial Tr. day 3, p. 75, l. 25 — p. 76, l. 3. However, Dr. Feld directly contradicted himself, twice admitting the exact opposite on cross-examination: 84 Q. Now, in the Nidek system, in the Nidek system each pulse is emitted one at a time; correct? 85 A. That's correct. 86 Q. A pulse is emitted and then it strikes the eye? 87 A. Yes. 88 Q. Second pulse is emitted and strikes the eye? 89 A. Yes. 90 Q. They're separate events; correct? 91 A. Yes. 92 Trial Tr. day 3, p. 119, ll. 17-25. 93 Q. And isn't it true, ... Professor Feld, that in the Nidek system no two pulses ever reach the cornea at the same time? 94 A. That's correct. 95 Trial Tr. day 3, p. 126, ll. 22-25. Summit's assertion of a scientifically flawed premise of the physical combination of individual laser pulses cannot be a basis for finding infringement. Because all of the witnesses agreed or admitted at trial that such physical combinations of separate laser pulses were technologically impossible, such testimony cannot provide the more than a mere scintilla of evidence needed to support the jury's finding of infringement of the Azema '330 patent.