Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

September 30, 2005, Decided

05-1043

Opinion

 [*1296]  LINN, Circuit Judge.

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. et al. ("Medtronic") appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California ("district court") permanently enjoining Medtronic from infringing claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,474,555 ("the '555 patent") owned by Cross Medical Products, Inc. ("Cross Medical"). See Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27643, No. SA CV 03-110-GLT(ANx) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2004). The  [*1297]  permanent [**2]  injunction was issued following the grant of Cross Medical's motions for partial summary judgment of validity and infringement. See Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27644, No. SA CV 03-110-GLT(ANx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2004) ("Invalidity Opinion"); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14183, No. SA CV 03-110-GLT(ANx) (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2004) ("Infringement Opinion"). As a threshold matter, we conclude, over Cross Medical's objection, that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. On Medtronic's challenge to the district court's claim construction rulings, we affirm the district court's construction of the "anchoring means," "securing means," and "bear against said channel "limitations, but modify the district court's construction of the "anchor seat means" and "operatively joined" limitations. Because we find genuine issues of material fact regarding infringement, we reverse the grant of Cross Medical's motion for partial summary judgment of infringement and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Medtronic's cross-motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement. We also reverse the grant of Cross Medical's motion for partial [**3]  summary judgment that claim 5 is not obvious but affirm the grant of that motion as to indefiniteness and anticipation. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Medtronic's cross-motion for summary judgment as to these invalidity issues. Consequently, we vacate the permanent injunction. Thus, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.

I. BACKGROUND

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

424 F.3d 1293 *; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 21200 **

CROSS MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK, INC. and MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC., Defendants-Appellants.

Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 25585 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 8, 2005)

Prior History:  [**1]  Appealed from: United States District Court for the Central District of California Senior. Judge Gary L. Taylor.

Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6545 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 8, 2005)

Disposition: AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

anchor, patent, screw, bone, infringement, seat, district court, channel, nut, securing, surgeons, interface, receiver, axis, argues, asserts, prior art, injunction, threads, ordinary skill, invention, external, forces, compressive, apparatus, joined, implant, polyaxial, segment, interchangeability

Civil Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Exclusive Jurisdiction, Patent Law, Remedies, Equitable Relief, Injunctions, Jurisdiction, General Overview, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Altering & Amending Judgments, Appeals, Appellate Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Orders, Parties, Joinder of Parties, Summary Judgment Review, Summary Judgment, Partial Summary Judgment, Injunctions, Permanent Injunctions, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, De Novo Review, Standards of Review, Discovery, Methods of Discovery, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Materiality of Facts, Supporting Materials, Jurisdiction & Review, Infringement Actions, Claim Interpretation, Fact & Law Issues, Specifications, Definiteness, Anticipation & Novelty, Nonobviousness, Evidence, Claim Differentiation, Description Requirement, Construction Preferences, Means Plus Function Clauses, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Reissue Proceedings, Claims, Claim Parts, Preambles, Business & Corporate Compliance, Infringing Acts, Offers to Sell & Sales, International Trade Law, International Commerce & Trade, Exports & Imports, Use, Defenses, Inequitable Conduct, Burdens of Proof, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Doctrine of Equivalents, Improvements & New Equivalents, Indirect Infringement, Intent & Knowledge, Utility Patents, Product Patents, Machines, Preclusion of Judgments, Estoppel, Judicial Estoppel, Preclusion, Appellate Briefs, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Elements & Tests, Claimed Invention as a Whole, Claim Language, Duplication & Multiplicity, Enablement Requirement, Ordinary Skill Standard, Prior Art