Federal Circuit Reverses Jury Verdict in Blood Clot-Clearing Patent Suit

Holding:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a 2007 jury finding that Datascope Corp. had infringed three patents held by Johns Hopkins University and Arrow International Inc. on a device that fragments blood clots from vascular grafts in hemodialysis patients. The Federal Circuit held that the alleged infringement was not supported by substantial evidence because no reasonable jury could have found the accused device met the two point contact limitation. The Federal Circuit also held jthat judgment as a matter of law as to patent non-infringement should have been found due to the lack of substantial evidence. The only evidence presented by plaintiffs was their expert's testimony, which the Federal Circuit found to be unconvincing. On the basis of the foregoing, the Federal Circuit overturned the district court's denial of Datascope’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement and remanded to the district court for entry of a final judgment in favor of Datascope consistent with its opinion.

Detailed Summary:

Defendant-appellant Datascope Corp. (“Datascope”) appealed from a final judgment of infringement and contributory infringement of claims of three patents. Plaintiff-appellee Johns Hopkins University (“Hopkins”) is the owner and co-plaintiff-appellee, while Arrow International, Inc. (“Arrow”) is the exclusive licensee of the three patents-at-issue, each titled “Percutaneous Mechanical Fragmentation Catheter System.” Opinion, p. 2.

All three patents are directed to methods for mechanically fragmenting blood clots, particularly thrombus material occluding synthetic vascular grafts, and all share a common specification. Id.

The patented methods address the problem that patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis experience blockage of their dialysis access grafts approximately three or four times…

More Updates