NO REASONABLE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND INFRINGEMENT

The Johns Hoplins University v. Datascope Corp., [2007-1530] (October 2, 2008) [ZOBEL, Newman, Schall] The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,766,191, 6,824,551, and 7,108,704.
DISCUSSION: The Federal Circuit held that the jury’s verdict of infringement of claim 1 of the ‘191 patent, claims 16-17, 27 and 34 of the ‘551 patent and claims 1, 3-7 and 15-18 of the ‘704 patent was not supported by substantial evidence and that defendant’s motion for JMOL should have been granted.
Each of the asserted independent claims in the patents-in-suit requires introducing, into a vascular conduit, a fragmentation catheter comprised either of a fragmentation member or an expanding distal end that automatically expands to conform to the shape and diameter of the inner lumen of the vascular conduit. The Federal Circuit therefore examined the record for substantial evidence in support of the finding of infringement. Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla” and is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” The Federal Circuit found that, no reasonable jury could have found that the ProLumen device literally met this limitation based on the expert’s testimony opinion, given his contradictory testimony that the device only contacts the vessel in two places.