"Aortic Innovations asserted patents are directed to transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices. The patents claimed dual-frame configurations with an "outer frame" and an "inner frame" working together. The district court construed "outer frame" to mean "self-expanding frame" (a frame using shape-memory material that springs back to expanded form) rather than its seemingly broader plain meaning that might encompass both self-expanding and balloon-expandable frames (frames requiring balloon inflation to expand). Based on this construction, the parties stipulated to non-infringement."
"When I write a blog post, I try to use varied vocabulary and synonyms to create more engaging and nuanced text. This is also helpful for rounding out context and characters. But, that approach is in direct conflict with the precision that is sometimes needed for patent claiming where consistent terminology provides clarity and varied usage can create unintended limitations."
The Federal Circuit in Aortic Innovations v. Edwards Lifesciences affirmed a claim construction narrowing "outer frame" to mean a "self-expanding frame" because the specification used the terms interchangeably. The patents claimed dual-frame transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices with outer and inner frames that function together. The district court adopted the narrower construction and the parties stipulated to non-infringement. The Federal Circuit applied precedents on implicit lexicography, recognizing that a patentee can define claim terms explicitly or implicitly when the specification equates terms clearly enough to limit ordinary meaning. The decision underscores the need for precise, consistent claim terminology.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]