Opinion ID: 3066240
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An ultrasonic surgical device comprising:

Text: a transducer assembly adapted to vibrate at an ultrasonic frequency in response to electrical energy; a mounting device having a first end and a second end, the mounting device adapted to receive ultrasonic vibration from the transducer assembly and to transmit the ultrasonic vibration from the first end to the second end of the mounting device, the first end of the mounting device coupled to the transducer assembly; a transmission rod having a first end and a second end, the transmission rod adapted to receive ul- trasonic vibration from the mounting device and to transmit the ultrasonic vibration from the first end to the second end of the transmission rod; a damping member surrounding at least a portion of the transmission rod, the damping member con- figured to loosely contact the transmission rod over a portion of the transmission rod, the damping member adapted to absorb undesired vibrations along the transmission rod without the use of a fluid; and an end effector having a first end and a second end, the end effector adapted to receive the ultrasonic vibration from the transmission rod and to 18 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. transmit the ultrasonic vibration from the first end to the second end of the end effector, the sec- ond end of the end effector being disposed near an antinode and the first end of the end effector cou- pled to the second end of the transmission rod. ’275 patent at 16:50–17:10 (emphasis added). After the close of discovery, Covidien filed a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, contending that the damping sheath surrounding the transmission rod of its accused ultrasonic shears is not “configured to loosely contact” the transmission rod or “adapted to absorb undesired vibrations.” Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 130, at 2. The district court granted Covidien’s motion, finding no genuine dispute that Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears did not satisfy either of those limitations. Id. at 21, 26– 27. On appeal, Ethicon challenges the district court’s construction of “loosely contact” and contends that the district court improperly resolved disputed issues of fact and conflicting expert testimony in Covidien’s favor. We begin first with Ethicon’s challenge to the district court’s claim construction. The district court construed “configured to loosely contact” as “structured to have contact other than at fixed support points, but not tightly fitted.” Ethicon DCt, No. 11–cv–871, 2013 WL 1787153, at –8 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 25, 2013). Ethicon contends that the district court imported a limitation into the term inconsistent with its ordinary meaning—that “loose[] contact” is contact “other than at fixed support points.” According to Ethicon, nothing in the specification limits where this “loose contact” can occur, and thus that “loose contact” encompasses embodiments in which contact occurs only at fixed support points such as the “nodal ribs” where the damping sheath of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears is attached to its transmission rod. After review of the disputed term, we arrive at the same construction as did the district court. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 19 We review the district court’s claim construction here de novo because it relied only on evidence intrinsic to the ’275 patent. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). Claim language must be viewed in light of the specification, which is the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Claim 1 recites that the damping sheath surrounding the transmission rod “loosely contact[s] the transmission rod over a portion of the transmission rod.” ’275 patent, 16:66–67 (emphasis added). The recitation of “over a portion” suggests that such “loose contact” is not contact only at discrete fixed points, as Ethicon contends. The specification reinforces this understanding, explaining that a longitudinal slit extends along the damping sheath from one end to the other in order to allow the sheath to fit over the transmission rod. Id. at 10:52–54, 10:65–11:7. Without the slit, the damping sheath “may not be able to loosely contact the transmission rod” over its crosssectional diameter. Id. at 10:53–55. See also id. at 9:58– 60 (“The damping sheath 160 is preferably in light contact with the transmission rod 86 to absorb unwanted ultrasonic energy from the transmission rod.” (emphasis added)). Moreover, the specification explains that this damping sheath “is more effective than using silicone rubber rings [‘nodal ribs’] located only at nodes of longitudinal vibration.” Id. at 10:7–9. This is because the damping sheath can “dampen transverse motion occurring near multiple antinodes of the unwanted vibration which are 20 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. located randomly along the length of the transmission rod.” Id. at 10:9–12. Antinodes are points at which the ultrasonic standing wave vibrating through the transmission rod is at its absolute value maximum, or peak, amplitude. Id. at 5:60–62. In short, the specification touts the benefits of the sheath for its ability to dampen vibrations along the full length of the transmission rod instead of only at certain fixed points. Thus, the specification strongly suggests that the desirable “loose contact” between the sheath and transmission rod is contact other than at only fixed points. In particular, this “loose contact” occurs at various portions of the sheath in between fixed nodes of the transmission rod, where the amplitude of the ultrasonic standing wave is at its peak. We find nothing in the specification supporting the notion that contact between the damping sheath and the transmission rod only at nodal ribs is “loose contact.” We therefore affirm the district court’s construction of “configured to loosely contact.” Based on its construction, the district court found that the transmission rod of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears only contacted its damping sheath at fixed nodal rib supports, and thus did not satisfy the “loosely contact” limitation of the asserted claims. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 130, at 17–18. The district court also found that because there was no evidence the transmission rod of Covidien’s accused shears contacted the sheath, there was no evidence that the sleeve “absorb[ed] unwanted vibrations along the transmission rod,” as required by the asserted claims. Id. at 22. Ethicon contends there are genuine issues of material fact as to 1) whether even under the district court’s construction of “loosely contact,” the damping sheath of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears “loosely contacts” its transmission rod, and 2) whether Covidien’s accused shears are “adapted to absorb undesirable vibrations.” We agree with Ethicon. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 21 We turn first to the district court’s determination that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the damping sheath of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears does not “loosely contact[]” its transmission rod. Neither party disputes that the sleeve of Covidien’s shears is supported by fixed nodal ribs on its transmission rod, and that because these ribs have a greater diameter than the rest of the transmission rod, there is some amount of space along the length of the transmission rod separating the sheath from the transmission rod. Id. at 18. The district court found that because the nodal ribs were raised, contact between the sheath and the transmission rod was avoided. Id. The district court also determined that even if the accused sheath was capable of contacting the transmission rod, summary judgment would still be appropriate because there was no evidence that the accused sheath was “structured to have contact” at locations other than the fixed nodal ribs. Id. at 19. In particular, the district court relied on testimony from Covidien’s engineers that Covidien sought to design the sheath of its accused device so that it would not “loosely contact” the transmission rod. Id. at 19–20. This finding, however, did not take into account contrary evidence and testimony from Ethicon’s expert, J.A. 3604, showing that the sheath of Covidien’s accused shears appeared to contact its transmission rod at points other than the nodal ribs during operation. Specifically, Ethicon’s expert examined two sets of high-resolution computer axial tomography (CT) and X-ray scans generated during tests of Covidien’s accused shears, testifying that it was his opinion that both sets of scans showed loose contact at points other than the fixed nodal ribs. J.A. 3603, 3617–18. Covidien’s expert disputed the testimony of Ethicon’s expert, opining that most of the scans did not show any contact between the sheath and transmission rod. J.A. 2165. However, Covidien’s expert conceded that at least 22 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. one of the scans did show contact, but argued that such contact was due to a nonconforming “wrinkle” in the sheath. J.A. 2165–66; see also Appellee’s Br. 39–40 (“[Although the CT scans at issue] may reflect contact of the [sheath] and [transmission rod] between the nodal ribs, any contact was due to a nonconforming ‘wrinkle’ in the sleeve component of that particular instrument.”). There is no evidence in the record, however, to support the expert’s assertion that this alleged wrinkle was indeed nonconforming. See J.A. 3630 (“Q. Did you [Covidien’s expert] ever discuss this wrinkle with any of the engineers at Covidien? A. No.”); J.A. 3631 (“Q. Does Covidien do imaging of every [accused] device to determine that it is wrinkle-free before leaving the factory? A. Don’t know.’). In short, it is clear that genuine disputes remain as to whether the sheath of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears “loosely contacts” its transmission rod. We turn next to the district court’s determination that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the damping sheath of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears is not “adapted to absorb undesired vibrations along the transmission rod.” The district court found there was no proof that Covidien’s accused shears experienced undesired transverse vibrations and no proof that the accused shears absorbed those vibrations. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 130, at 24. To reach this conclusion, the district court first relied on testimony from a Covidien expert, who performed certain water and glycerin droplet tests which purported to show that the transmission rod of Covidien’s ultrasonic shears did not experience any undesired transverse vibrations. Id. at 22. Next, as with the “loosely contact” limitation, the district court was persuaded by Covidien testimony that its accused shears were “purposefully designed” to avoid unwanted transverse vibrations. In particular, the district court relied on testimony of Covidien’s engineers that the transmission rod of its accused ultrasonic shears was designed to be symmetrical ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 23 and to resonate only in the longitudinal—and not transverse—direction, and that contact between the transmission rod and sheath at points other than fixed nodal ribs was identified as a “failure mode” of the sheath. Id. at 22, 26. The district court, noting there was no dispute that undesired transverse vibrations were generated by asymmetry of the transmission rod, thus concluded that Covidien’s shears were designed to avoid generating transverse vibrations “by mechanical design.” Id. The district court, however, improperly discounted clear evidence that the transmission rod of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears did experience transverse vibrations during testing. In particular, Covidien’s expert performed a “droplet test,” in which he placed droplets of water or glycerin on the transmission rod of Covidien’s accused shears. This test was performed on a fully assembled device by having the sleeve removed and windows cut into the sheath. According to Covidien’s expert, if the droplets splattered off the transmission rod, there were transverse vibrations, and if not, there were no transverse vibrations. Although Covidien’s expert testified that he saw no droplets splatter, Ethicon’s expert testified that he repeated the test using glycerine and observed the test fluid flying off tangentially from the transmission rod. J.A. 3688. In addition, the district court’s conclusion that Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears were designed to avoid transverse vibrations is also based on an incomplete view of the record. In particular, the district court’s reliance on the symmetry of Covidien’s transmission rod as evidence that the accused shears avoided transverse vibrations “by mechanical design” is contradicted by testimony from Covidien’s own witnesses, who testified that the transmission rod was actually asymmetrical. J.A. 3604 (“[W]e don’t live in a perfect world, so there are straightness, curvatures of parts that are natural within the part . . . .”). In addition, the district court did not 24 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. address evidence in the record that Covidien’s manufacturing tolerances for the transmission rod allowed for a certain amount of variance that could result in asymmetries of the rod. J.A. 3605. Moreover, self-serving testimony from Covidien’s witnesses about the purported goal of its product design does not negate the evidence in the record, as discussed above, supporting the possible conclusion that the transmission rod of the accused shears actually did experience unwanted transverse vibrations. Taking all inferences in favor of the non-movant Ethicon, disputed issues of material fact remain as to whether Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears infringe or do not infringe the asserted claims of the ’275 patent. Rather than properly evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the district court appears to have impermissibly resolved factual disputes in favor of Covidien in order to reach its conclusions. We therefore vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 1 and 3 of the ’275 patent. 3 3 We note that Ethicon also argues that the district court ignored testimony by Covidien’s own witnesses that the sheath of its accused device was “designed to contact” the transmission rod in order to prevent the rod from touching the inner diameter of an inner tube. J.A. 3649. Preventing such contact reduced the probability of an audible “squealing” when the two components touched. Id. But Ethicon does not show how the presence of “squealing” signals the presence of transverse vibrations, which are the “undesired” vibrations recited by the claims. Nor does Ethicon explain how such “squealing” provides evidence that the sheath absorbs transverse vibrations of the transmission rod. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 25