Citations
- 95 F. Supp. 2d 348
Full opinion text
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT WITH CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
D. BROOKS SMITH, District Judge.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The Parties
B. The Patents In Suit
1. The Claims
a. The ‘303 Patent
b. The‘224 Patent
2. The Specifications
a. The ‘303 Patent
b. The ‘224 Patent
3. The Prosecution History of the ‘303 Patent
C. Sunrise’s Entry Into the OCD Market
D. AirSep’s Development of the ImPulse Select
E. The Witnesses
F. Likelihood of success on the merits
1. Ownership
2. Infringement
a. The ‘303 Patent
i. Whether AirSep’s ImPulse Select “Employed a Method” in Violation of the ‘303 Patent CO CO
ii. Alleged Non-infringement of Invacare Venture Device CO CO
iii. Non-infringement Defense of Providing a Dose During Exhalation t-CO
(A.) Claim Construction Testimony t> CO
(B.) The Accused Device Can Provide a Dose of Oxygen during Exhalation CO
(C.) The FDA Investigation CO —CJ Cl
iv. Equivalence of Fluidic Control Versus Electronic Control CO <1
v. Whether the Sequence of Steps of the ImPulse Select Matches the Sequence of Steps Required by the ‘303 Patent CO -q CO
vi. Does the Accused Device Meet the “At Least As Great A Rise” Limitation of Claim 3? O OO CO
vii. AirSep’s Non-Infringement Opinion Regarding the ‘303 Patent T-ri 00 CO
viii. Has Any Other Person Used the ImPulse Select in Violation of the ‘303 Patent? CO OO
ix. Did AirSep Intend Any Entity to Use the ImPulse Select in Violation of That Patent?
b. The ‘224 Patent
i. AirSep’s Development of the ImPulse and ImPulse Select
ii. Structure and Operation of the ImPulse Select
iii. The Evolution of the Bypass Valve
iv. Definition of Bypass Valve
v. Claim Construction Testimony
vi. The ImPulse Select’s Bypass Valve
vii. AirSep’s Patents and Patent Applications
viii. AirSep’s Testing of the EX 2000.
ix. The Bench Study Article and Comparison of the EX 2000 to the ImPulse Select CO CO to
x. Sunrise’s Testing of the Accused Device to Determine Infringement CO SO CO
3. Validity (O
a. The ‘303 Patent (O
i. The Disclaimer CO
ii. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art CO
iii. The Combination of U.S. Patent No. 2,766,752 (Meidenbaur) and Smith Reference
b. The ‘224 Patent
i. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
ii. The OMS 20/50 Reference (Claim 1)
iii. The Combination of OMS 20/50 Reference and the European Patent (Claims 2-6) o Oi
iv. The Combination of the ‘627 Patent, the ‘881 Patent and the European Patent O
v. Other Indicia of Obviousness rH
c. Sunrise’s Patent Search ~ EX 2000 rH
4. Enforceability rH
a. Patent Misuse--The Puritan Bennett License-The ‘303 Patent rH
b. Inequitable Conduct - The ‘224 Patent rH
5. Prior Adjudication/Reissue and Reexamination rH
Irreparable Harm rH o
1. Sunrise’s Allegations of Lost Market Share and Price Reduction t — i
a. Alleged Price Reduction rH
b. Alleged Reduction in Market Share 04
2. Sunrise’s Reputation and Goodwill 04
3. Sunrise’s Patent Policies 04
4. The Annual Report 04
5. Market Life of Sunrise’s Products 04
6. Sunrise’s Delay in Bringing the Action 04
7. Sunrise’s Lost Profits 04
8. Non-Commercialization of the ‘303 Patent CO
9. AirSep’s Ability to Meet a Judgment CO
Balance of Hardships CO K
False Patent Marking CO
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
II.JURISDICTION AND VENUE 434
III. STANDARDS FOR ISSUING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 434
IV. LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS 436
A. Ownership 436
B. Infringement 437
1. Claim Construction Principles 437
a. General Precepts 437
b. Means-Plus-Function Claims 439
2. Infringement Principles 440
a. Literal Infringement 441
b. Doctrine of Equivalents 441
c. Prosecution History Estoppel 442
3. Comparison of the ‘303 Patent Claims to the Accused Method 443
a. Does AirSep Directly Infringe Claim 3 of the ‘303 Patent Under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a)? 443
b. Is There Direct Infringement of Claim 3 by Others? 443
i. Literal Infringement 443
ii. Prosecution History Estoppel and Infringement of Claim 3 Under The Doctrine Of Equivalents. 446
c. Whether AirSep Intentionally Induced Direct Infringement of Claim 3 448
4. Comparison of the ‘224 Patent Claims to the Accused Device 448
a. Literal Infringement 448
b. Doctrine of Equivalents 448
C. Validity 450
1. 35 U.S.C. §102~Anticipation H ai
2. 35 U.S.C. § 103--Obviousness M en
3. Scope and Content of the Prior Art DO en
4. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art W oí
5. The Lack of Differences Between the Claims and the Prior Art CO oí
a. Whether Claims 3-5 of the ‘303 Patent are Invalid Under § 103 as Obvious ox CO
i. Sunrise’s Alleged Admission of Invalidity ox CO
ii. Whether Claims 3-5 are Obvious in View of the ‘752 Patent (Meidenbaur) over Smith
b. Whether the Claims of the ‘224 Patent are Invalid
i. Whether Claims 1-6 of the ‘224 Patent are Invalid on the Ground of Anticipation Ox OX
ii. Whether the Remaining Claims of the ‘224 Patent are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in View of the OMS 50 Reference Over the European Patent ox cn
iii. Whether Claims 1-7 of the ‘224 Patent are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in View of the ‘627 Patent over the OMS 50, the ‘881 Patent or the European Patent -3
6. Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness -3
D. Enforceability -q
1. Whether Sunrise Misused the ‘303 Patent -3
2. Whether There Was Inequitable Conduct During the Prosecution of the ‘224 Patent ox
V. IRREPARABLE HARM a
VI. THE BALANCE OF THE HARDSHIPS