MBO originally filed the suit against Becton in January 2003, asserting that Becton’s SafetyGlideTM hypodermic safety syringes infringed the RE ’885 reissue patent.  The RE ’885 patent discloses a design for a hypodermic safety syringe that protects against “needle-stick injuries” to health workers by sheathing a contaminated needle in a covered guard.  See the decision below:

Security Experts: Hackers Could Target Pacemakers (ABC)

FDA Requires Device Makers to Provide Pediatric Information (ModernMedicine)

Medical device product markets immune to economic woes of 2008-09 (plastemart.com)

Boston Scientific recall could cost $469m (Boston Globe)

Medical Device and In Vitro Diagnostics/Research Deal Statistics Quarterly, Q4 2009 (Medical Devices Today)

Medical Imaging Firms Support FDA Plan To Cut Radiation (Nasdaq)

Medical-device firms cry foul (Sentinel & Enterprise)

Health overhaul brings change to health insurers, care providers, and medical product makers (Bizmology)

Survey: Med device firms plan to hire (Boston Business Journal)

FDA’s new policies threaten innovation (LAT)

Heart Device Won’t Get Quick Review (WSJ)

FDA panel mostly backs much-debated knee device (AP)

Edwards loses another round in CoreValve patent war with Medtronic (Mass Device)

Smith & Nephew’s growing pains (FT)

Pressure Products is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 5,125,904 covering a medical device known as an “introducer” — a device facilitating the placement of catheters or leads into blood vessels during surgical procedures.  The ’904 patent essentially claimed a more convenient way to remove the introducer’s valve and sheath after introduction of the lead.  Pressure Products sued Enpath in the Eastern District of Texas, accusing Enpath’s FlowGuard™ introducer product (“FlowGuard™”) and its ViaSeal™ prototype introducer product (“ViaSeal™”) of patent infringement.  In 2006, a jury found that Enpath’s FlowGuard™ and ViaSeal™ introducers literally infringed and awarded $1.1 million in damages.

Today, however, the Federal Circuit vacated the claim construction on which infringement of the ’904 patent was based.  The district court erroneously construed “means plus function” claim language (concerning the meaning of a claimed “score line”) to include subject matter that was not disclosed in the specification but only, if at all, in the prior art.  The Federal Circuit said:

“[T]he trial court impermissibly expanded the corresponding structure of claim 1 to include structures not described in the specification. … Trial courts cannot look to the prior art, identified by nothing more than its title and citation in a patent, to provide corresponding structure for a means-plus-function limitation. In this case, these references provide alternatives to scoring. …  Simply mentioning prior art references in a patent does not suffice as a specification description to give the patentee outright claim to all of the structures disclosed in those references.”

The jury awarded reasonable royalty damages in the amount of 4.8 million dollars.