Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
September 2, 2008, Decided
[***1130] [*1339] DYK, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Howmedica Osteonics Corporation ("Howmedica") appeals from a final [**2] judgment of noninfringement in this patent infringement action against defendant-appellee Wright Medical Technology, Inc. ("Wright"). Under the district court's claim construction of the term "femoral component including at least one condylar element," the parties stipulated that the accused product did not infringe the asserted patent claims. Because we conclude that the construction of this claim term was incorrect, we cannot sustain the stipulated judgment. Furthermore, because we agree with the district court that Howmedica did not release its infringement claim as part of an earlier settlement agreement, Wright's asserted alternative ground for affirmance does not support the judgment. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of noninfringement, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Both parties develop, manufacture, and sell orthopedic implants for use in the reconstruction of various joints of the human body. Howmedica is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,824,100 ("the '100 patent"), which is directed to an artificial knee prosthesis or implant used to replace part or all of a patient's knee joint. Claim 15, the only independent [**3] claim asserted in this action, provides in full:
In a knee prosthesis for replacing the natural knee, the knee prosthesis having a femoral component and a tibial component, the tibial component including a bearing member and the femoral component including at least one condylar element for confronting and engaging the bearing member to accomplish articulation of the knee prosthesis throughout a range of flexion, including a primary range of flexion between a hyperextended position and a flexed position, the engagement between the condylar element of the femoral component and the bearing member of the tibial component ordinarily taking place at a contact area along articular surface areas of the condylar element and the bearing member, the improvement comprising:
anterior-posterior surface profile contours along the condylar element and the bearing member, the anterior-posterior surface profile contour along the condylar element having an essentially constant anterior-posterior articular radius throughout the articular surface area of the condylar element which contacts the bearing member during articulation throughout the primary range of flexion, the anterior-posterior articular radius [**4] having an origin lying generally along a line extending laterally between the medial and lateral collateral ligament attachment points on the femur of the natural knee.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
540 F.3d 1337 *; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18747 **; 88 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1129 ***
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25375 (Fed. Cir., Oct. 27, 2008)
Summary judgment granted by, Summary judgment denied by, Motion to strike denied by Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109571 (D.N.J., Nov. 24, 2009)
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in case no. 00-CV-1167, Judge Susan D. Wigenton.
Howmedica Osteonic Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 276 Fed. Appx. 974, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11110 (Fed. Cir., 2008)
Disposition: VACATED AND REMANDED.
condylar, prosthesis, knee, patent, parties, condyles, geometric, articulation, bicondylar, femoral, district court, limitations, inventor, flexion, invention, infringement, accomplish, drafted, specification, lawsuits, replaces, anterior-posterior, tibial, reformation, articular, unicondylar, settlement, geometry, argues, engaging
Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Claims & Specifications, General Overview, Claims, Claim Parts, Preambles, Claim Language, Elements & Limitations, Infringement Actions, Claim Interpretation, Aids & Extrinsic Evidence, Scope of Claim, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Appellate Review, Standards of Review, Contracts Law, Contract Interpretation, Settlements, Settlement Agreements, Parol Evidence, Appeals, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Remedies, Reformation