{"id":1207,"date":"2016-09-16T19:58:13","date_gmt":"2016-09-16T23:58:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1207"},"modified":"2016-09-22T11:06:18","modified_gmt":"2016-09-22T15:06:18","slug":"substantial-evidence-supported-infringement-of-limitations-that-did-not-need-construction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1207","title":{"rendered":"Substantial Evidence Supported Infringement of Limitations That Did Not Need Construction"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Lifenet Health v. Lifecell Corporation<\/em>, [2015-1549](September 16, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,569,200 on\u00a0plasticized soft tissue\u00a0grafts suitable for transplantation into humans were not invalid and were infringed.<\/p>\n

At issue was the claim language that the “one or more plasticizers are not removed
\nfrom said internal matrix of said plasticized\u00a0soft tissue graft prior to transplantation into a\u00a0human.” \u00a0This language was added during prosecution to distinguish over prior art where the\u00a0introduced plasticizers were removed before implantation. \u00a0The accused product instructed users to soak the grafts in saline which would remove as much as 50%\u00a0of the plasticizers.<\/p>\n

The district court found that no further claim construction was needed. \u00a0Lifecell argued that the district court failed to resolve a legal dispute regarding the scope of the claim, however the Federal Circuit found that Lifecell did not properly raise the issue. \u00a0Lifecell wanted the jury to be instructed that removal of any plasticizer from any part of the graft was enough to avoid infringement, which the Federal Circuit found was not only an argument about degree of removal, but also an argument about from where the pasticizer is not to be removed. \u00a0Regarding degree, Lifecell did get the interpretation \u00a0and instruction it wanted. \u00a0Regarding location, Lifecell failed to properly raise an issue of what “internal matrix” meant .<\/p>\n

Examining the record, the Federal Circuit found that there was substantial\u00a0evidence to support the jury\u2019s determination that\u00a0plasticizer is not removed \u201cfrom the internal matrix\u201d of\u00a0the accused tissue grafts before transplantation.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit went on to reject Lifecell’s arguments based on joint infringement, finding that the limitations were not steps that needed to be performed, but limitations on the structure. \u00a0Similarly, the Federal Circuit rejected the argument that the claim contained mixed method and apparatus limitations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Lifenet Health v. Lifecell Corporation, [2015-1549](September 16, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,569,200 on\u00a0plasticized soft tissue\u00a0grafts suitable for transplantation into humans were not invalid and were infringed. At … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1207","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino","category-uncategorized"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1207","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1207"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1207\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1228,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1207\/revisions\/1228"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1207"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1207"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1207"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}