Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
February 2, 2009, Decided
2007-1340, -1341, -1342
[***1802] [*1013] PROST, Circuit Judge.
Defendants Medela, Inc. and Blue Sky Medical Group, Inc. appeal the denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness and their alternative motion for a new trial on obviousness. They also appeal the district court's claim construction and failure to declare several claim terms indefinite. Plaintiff Kinetic Concepts, Inc. cross-appeals the denial of [*1014] its motion for judgment as a matter of law on infringement and its alternative motion for a new trial on infringement.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Kinetic Concepts, Inc., KCI Licensing, Inc., KCI USA, Inc., and Wake Forest University Health Sciences (collectively, "KCI") brought suit against Medela AG, Medela, Inc., Richard Weston, and Blue Sky Medical Group, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. [***1803] 5,636,643 ("'643 patent") and 5,645,081 ("'081 patent"), as well as claims of false advertising, [**3] unfair competition, and conspiracy. Defendants responded with counterclaims alleging that the asserted patents were invalid and unenforceable. After a six week trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the jury returned a verdict that the asserted patents were not shown to be invalid, unenforceable, or infringed. The jury also found against KCI on its false advertising, unfair competition, and conspiracy claims.
After trial, Defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") that the asserted claims are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In the alternative, Defendants requested a new trial on obviousness. KCI filed its own motion for judgment as a matter of law on infringement, or in the alternative, requested a new trial on infringement. The district court denied each of these motions.
Defendants now appeal the district court's denial of their JMOL motion on obviousness, arguing that under a proper claim construction no reasonable juror could have found that the prior art did not render the asserted patents invalid. In the alternative, Defendants ask us to order a new trial on obviousness because the Supreme Court's decision [**4] in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 167 L. Ed. 2d 705 (2007), effected a supervening change in the law that retroactively rendered the jury instructions on obviousness erroneous. They also appeal the district court's determination that "selected stage of healing," "reduction in bacterial density in the wound by at least 50%," and "screen for prevention of overgrowth" are not indefinite claim limitations. KCI cross-appeals alleging that the district court erred by denying its motion for JMOL of infringement, and alternatively, requests a new trial on infringement because Defendants presented a "practicing the prior art" defense, compared the accused product to KCI's product, and engaged in "class warfare" before the jury.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
554 F.3d 1010 *; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 1788 **; 89 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1801 ***
KINETIC CONCEPTS, INC., KCI LICENSING, INC., KCI USA, INC., and WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES, Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, v. BLUE SKY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and RICHARD S. WESTON, Defendant-Appellant, and MEDELA AG and MEDELA, INC., Defendants-Appellants.
Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Group, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 29711 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 31, 2009)
US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Medela AG v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 558 U.S. 1024, 130 S. Ct. 624, 175 L. Ed. 2d 478, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 8211 (Nov. 16, 2009)
Related proceeding at Kinetic Concepts v. Bluesky Med. Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136806 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 17, 2009)
Prior History: [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in case no. 03-CV-0832, Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Bluesky Med. Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30211 (W.D. Tex., Apr. 4, 2007)
wound, infringement, specification, prior art, treating, patents, district court, references, healing, tissue, Construing, fistulae, suction, screen, overgrowth, incision, Terms, new trial, skin, asserted claim, dictionary, indefinite, invention, induced, argues, skill, intermittent, draining, surgical, jury's verdict
Civil Procedure, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, General Overview, Standards of Review, Substantial Evidence, Sufficiency of Evidence, Patent Law, Infringement Actions, Claim Interpretation, Aids & Extrinsic Evidence, Construction Preferences, Harmless & Invited Errors, Harmless Error Rule, Jurisdiction & Review, Substantial Evidence, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Nonobviousness, Elements & Tests, Prior Art, Appeals, Jury Instructions, Plain Error, Specifications, Definiteness, De Novo Review, Precision Standards, Business & Corporate Compliance, Infringing Acts, Indirect Infringement, Abuse of Discretion, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Motions for New Trials