Patent Law Updates | New Judicial Opinions
September 15, 2008
Lexion's Water Supply Recharge Port Merely Improves Its Own Patented Laparascopic Gas Humidifier, Federal Circuit Concludes
Lexion Medical, LLC v. Northgate Tech. Inc.
No. 2007-1420, -1440, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 8/28/2008
Holding:
In this dispute over patents relating to laparoscopic gas humidifier, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of obviousness. The Federal Circuit specifically found that plaintiff-appellee Lexion's ’609 patent simply modified the invention described in its own ’474 patent via a simple and minor improvement: adding a recharge part that allows for the replenishment of water for extended use during laparoscopic surgeries. With regard to the district court's finding of no willful infringement for defendant-appellant Northgate's post-verdict liquidation of its accused products, the Federal Circuit affirmed, citing a court precedent. Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that it was not objectively reckless of Northgate to obtain and rely on the opinion of counsel, which had predicted a favorable outcome in view of the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") then pending before the district court. Although the district court ultimately denied that motion, Northgate’s reliance on that opinion was nonetheless justified.
Detailed Summary:
Defendants-Appellants Northgate Technologies, Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc., and Linvatec Corp. (“Northgate” or “defendants”) appealed from the final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, entered following a jury trial, that Claims 11 and 12 of the ’474 patent are valid and were infringed by Northgate. Plaintiff-Cross Appellant Lexion Medical, LLC (“Lexion”) cross-appealed the district court’s determination that Northgate’s post-verdict sales did not constitute willful infringement. It also cross-appealed the district court’s grant of JMOL that the asserted claims of the ’609 patent are invalid for obviousness. Opinion. p. 1-2.
Lexion’s ’474 and ’609 patents disclose…
To continue reading this article, subscribe now
It's FREE and only takes seconds