§Why CasetextPricing

Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co et al v. Animas Corporation

MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Invalidity of the Asserted Claims of the U.S. Patent No. 5,665,065 69 , and, in the Alternative, in Support of Defendant Animas Corporation's Proposed Claim Constructions

22 Cited authorities

  1. Aristocrat Tech v. Intern. Game

    521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 326 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in cases involving means-plus-function claims where structure is "a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm," specification must disclose corresponding algorithm to be sufficiently definite

  2. Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.

    700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 257 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “black box” labeled “Purchase Orders” was insufficient structure to perform the “generate purchase orders” function

  3. Medical Instr. and Diagnostics v. Elekta

    344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 328 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court erred in finding that defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of material fact on obvious; noting, inter alia , that "[defendant's] expert's declaration quotes from several prior art articles that expressly discuss the combination of stereotaxy with computer imaging technologies"

  4. Blackboard v. DESIRE2LEARN

    368 F. App'x 111 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 164 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even "a cursory motion suffices to preserve an issue on JMOL so long as it 'serves the purposes of Rule 50, i.e., to alert the court to the party's legal position and to put the opposing party on notice of the moving party's position as to the insufficiency of the evidence.'"

  5. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google Inc.

    708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 103 times
    Holding that a specification's mere disclosure of "a computer program that transmits" is not structure as a matter of law because it is merely a non-limiting "abstraction that simply describes the function"

  6. Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co.

    983 F.2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 182 times
    Holding that section 112, ¶ 6, permits the use of means-plus-function language in claims, but with the proviso that the claims are limited to the structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification and their equivalents

  7. Halliburton Co. v. Walker

    329 U.S. 1 (1946)   Cited 165 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 71 USPQ 175 (1946), the Supreme Court held invalid a claim that was drafted in means-plus-function fashion.

  8. D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere Co.

    755 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 165 times
    Holding that to interpret "means plus function" limitations as "limited to a particular means set forth in the specification would be to nullify the provision of § 112 requiring that the limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof."

  9. Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC

    671 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a construction limiting a means-plus-function limitation to the specific disclosed analog-to-digital converter, despite the presence of a generic "analog-to-digital converter" in a patent figure, because "[i]f a patentee chooses to disclose a single embodiment, then any means-plus-function claim limitation will be limited to the single disclosed structure and equivalents thereof

  10. Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

    732 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that disclosure of a class of algorithms "that places no limitations on how values are calculated, combined, or weighted is insufficient to make the bounds of the claims understandable."

  11. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 100,874 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  12. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 29,183 times   200 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

  13. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,379 times   1047 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  14. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,183 times   1084 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  15. Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition

    28 U.S.C. § 1338   Cited 5,506 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"

  16. Section 285 - Attorney fees

    35 U.S.C. § 285   Cited 3,255 times   493 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases

  17. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,128 times   198 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"

  18. Section 283 - Injunction

    35 U.S.C. § 283   Cited 827 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Providing for injunctive relief, treble damages, and—in “exceptional cases”—attorney’s fees as remedies for patent infringement

  19. Section 287 - Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice

    35 U.S.C. § 287   Cited 783 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Limiting liability of medical practitioners for performance of certain medical and surgical procedures

  20. Section 281 - Remedy for infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 281   Cited 658 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Providing that " patentee shall have remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent"