A Sound Claim Construction Does Always Purge All Ambiguity

Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., [06-1260, -1437](April 12, 2007)[GAJARSA, Linn, Moore] The Federal Circuit affirmed findings of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,472,444 on an orthopedic nail, and willfulness, but vacated the permanent injunction, and remanded for reconsideration in view of the Supreme Court's decision in eBay v. MercExchange.
SIGNIFICANCE: Some times claim construction is easy. Claim construction does not have to purge all ambiguity. Injunctions in patent cases are not automatic.
BRIEF: On claim construction the Federal Circuit started with the language of the claims, and noted that "The task of comprehending those words is not always a difficult one." In some cases the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words. The Federal Circuit found that "curved" was readily understood, and rejected a more technical meaning based on the specification as an attempt to read in limitations from the preferred embodiment. Claim differentiation also supported the broader construction, particularly where, as here, the only difference in the claim was the narrow limitation Stryker tried to import. Stryker also criticized the claim construction as indefinite, to which the Federal Circuit responded "a sound claim construction need not always purge every shred of ambiguity." The Federal Circuit also rejected Stryker's attempt to limit "transverse holes" to perpendicular holes as importing limitations from the specification. Regarding willfulness, the Federal Circuit agreed that proceeding forward with the FDA after concerns by patent counsel and before a opinion of non-infringement suggested willfulness. The Federal Circuit found that the district court applied the general rule in patent cases that in patent cases an injunction should issue absent exceptional circumstances, and thus vacated the injunction and remanded for reconsideration in view of eBay v. MercExchange.