Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular

Date: 04-20-2001

Case Number: 00-1205, 00-1214

Judge: Linn

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael V. Ciresi, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Thomas L. Hamlin, John N. Love, Jan M. Conlin, Tara D. Sutton, Katie Crosby Lehmann. Of counsel was David S. Toepfer.

Defendant's Attorney: Richard A. Bardin, Fulwider Patton Lee & Utecht, LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for defendants-cross appellants. On the brief were John S. Nagy, John K. Fitzgerald, and James Juo. Of counsel on the brief were Aldo A. Badini, and Henry J. Ricardo, Dewey Ballentine LLP, of New York, New York.

Description:

Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”) seeks review of a final decision of the District Court for the District of Minnesota. Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., No. 97-CV-2459 (JMR/FLN) (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2000). The district court granted a motion by Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. and Guidant Corp. (collectively, “Defendants”) for judgment as a matter of law, filed after trial but before the case reached the jury. The district court held that claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 15, 17, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,653,727 (“’727 patent”) were not infringed by Defendants’ accused product. Because the district court correctly construed the means-plus-function limitation of “means for connecting adjacent elements together,” and because Medtronic conceded non-infringement based on that construction, we affirm.

Background

A. The ’727 Patent

This case concerns the technology involved in intravascular coronary stents. These devices hold open heart blood vessels which have been obstructed. As explained in the ’727 patent, a stent is introduced into a blood vessel, expanded, and left in place. Medtronic is the assignee of a series of patents and patent applications that deal with this technology. The ’727 patent is the last in a series of three applications, and resulting patents, that are relevant to the present suit. The lineage is as follows: (1) The first patent is U.S. Patent No. 4,886,062 (“’062 patent”), which issued in 1989. The application that resulted in the ’062 patent will be referred to, for simplicity, as the ’062 application. (2) The second patent stems from a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) of the ’062 application, the CIP issuing in 1992 as U.S. Patent No. 5,133,732 (“’732 patent”). The CIP application will be referred to, for simplicity, as the ’732 application. (3) The third patent stems from a continuation of the ’732 application, the continuation issuing in 1997 as the ’727 patent. The continuation application will be referred to, for simplicity, as the ’727 application.[1] Each of these applications will now be addressed in more detail.

The ’062 patent discloses a helically wound continuous-wire stent, as shown in Figure 3, reproduced below. Figure 3 also appears in the ’727 patent.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome:

Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Unknown

Defendant's Experts:

Unknown

Comments:

None

About This Case

What was the outcome of Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular?

The outcome was: Affirmed.

Which court heard Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular?

This case was heard in United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, MN. The presiding judge was Linn.

Who were the attorneys in Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular?

Plaintiff's attorney: Michael V. Ciresi, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Thomas L. Hamlin, John N. Love, Jan M. Conlin, Tara D. Sutton, Katie Crosby Lehmann. Of counsel was David S. Toepfer.. Defendant's attorney: Richard A. Bardin, Fulwider Patton Lee & Utecht, LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for defendants-cross appellants. On the brief were John S. Nagy, John K. Fitzgerald, and James Juo. Of counsel on the brief were Aldo A. Badini, and Henry J. Ricardo, Dewey Ballentine LLP, of New York, New York..

When was Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular decided?

This case was decided on April 20, 2001.