CAFC Affirms JMOL of Non-Infringement in Blood Sequestration Device Patent Dispute

"Where a claim lists limitations separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components in the patented invention. The plain and ordinary meaning of a claim with separately listed limitations requires separate corresponding structures, and because the accused product utilized a single structure for both limitations, it did not infringe as a matter of law."

"The patented devices aim to reduce false-positive microbial test results by separating and excluding the initial portion of blood collected from a patient. The Kurin Lock achieves this separation through a U-shaped side channel containing a porous plug, which the court found insufficient to meet the separately claimed limitations requiring distinct structural components."

The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's judgment of non-infringement in Magnolia Medical Technologies v. Kurin regarding blood sequestration device patents. The dispute involved whether Kurin's Lock product infringed patents covering devices that improve blood test accuracy by separating initial blood portions. The court determined that separately listed claim limitations require separate corresponding structures in the accused product. Since Kurin's device used a single U-shaped side channel with a porous plug to perform functions that the patent claimed required distinct components, the product did not infringe. The court's interpretation of claim language established that distinct limitations cannot be satisfied by unified structures.

Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law