FEDERAL CIRCUIT IGNORES ORDINARY MEANING AND GIVES NARROW CONSTRUCTION TO "WOUND", SUSTAINING VALIDITY OF PATENT

Kinetic Concepts, Inc., v. Blue Sky Medical Group, Inc., [2007-1340, -1341, -1342] (February 2, 2009) [PROST, Bryson, Dyk] the Federa; Corciot affirmed the denial of defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness and their alternative motion for a new trial on obviousness, and the failure to declare several claim terms indefinite, and affirmed plaintiff’s appeal of the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law on infringement and its alternative motion for a new trial on infringement.
DISCUSSION: Defendants complained about the proper construction of the term “wound”, which affected the application of the prior art to the claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the construction, noting that to construe “wound” broader would expand the scope of the claims far beyond anything described in the specification. The Federal Circuit found sufficient support for the jury’s determination of non-obviousness. Regarding the plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of infringement, the Federal Circuit said that while Defendants’ evidence may not have been overwhelming, it was nonetheless sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving direct infringement.
Regarding inducement, the Federal Circuit said that to prove induced infringement, the plaintiff must prove both direct infringement and “that the defendant possessed specific intent to encourage another’s infringement” citing DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co. The Federal Circuit found that while practicing the prior art is not a defense to patent infringement, it could support a jury verdict that the defendants did not intend to infringe.