![]() ![]() Teleflex submitted numerous documents and declarations from inventors and others in support of its arguments. ![]() Patent 7,736,355 (Itou), did not qualify as prior art because “the claimed inventions were (1) conceived prior to Itou’s filing date of Septem(i.e., the critical date), and (2) were (a) actually reduced to practice before the critical date or (b) diligently pursued until their constructive reduction to practice through their effective filing in May 2006.” Teleflex argued in response to Medtronic’s petitions that the primary prior art reference asserted, U.S. Medtronic filed 13 IPR petitions against Medtronic, five of which were consolidated in the present appeal. A “Rapid Exchange” version of the GuideLiner technology practices the patents and entered the market in 2009. (VSI), conceived of the technology in early 2005 and worked to develop it under the brand name, “GuideLiner”. Teleflex’s predecessor, Vascular Solutions, Inc. The inventions are specifically directed to “guide extension catheters that use a tapered inner catheter that runs over a standard coronary guidewire to reduce the likelihood that a guide catheter will dislodge from the coronary artery’s opening,” according to the CAFC. All of the patents descend from a common application filed on May 3, 2006, and are now owned by Teleflex Innovations S.À.R.L. Judge Dyk dissented, arguing that the prior art reference had been shown to qualify as prior art, and thus could support a determination of anticipation or obviousness. The CAFC specifically upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding that the primary prior art reference cited by Medtronic did not qualify as prior art under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) first-to-invent provisions. failed to show the challenged claims of five patents covering catheter technology unpatentable. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in a precedential decision today that Medtronic, Inc. “Although the patents themselves are the most important and, indeed, most persuasive evidence of the patents’ intended purpose, we find it is appropriate to consider extrinsic evidence, particularly when it does not contradict the patents themselves.”- CAFC
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |