August 19, 2015 – The Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part EVM Systems’ motion for summary judgment that its U.S. Patent No. 8,052,670, titled “Medical Device with Slotted Memory Metal Tube,” is not invalid on the grounds of anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of written description, and enablement.
The Court denied EVM’s motion with respect to anticipation and obviousness because there was conflicting evidence as to whether the prior art references disclosed the patent-in-suit.
The Court granted EVM’s motion for summary judgment that its medical device patent was not invalid as indefinite based on the term, “distal end.” The Defendants argued that to determine which end is the “distal end,” there must be a point of reference, but the Court held “a person of ordinary skill in the part would be able to study an apparatus in light of the ’670 patent and determine which end is the ‘distal end.’”
The Court also granted EVM’s motion for summary judgment with respect to written description, but denied its motion at to enablement. The Defendants argued that the ’670 patent’s specification does not describe “catching particles within an opened-ended expanded section of a ‘retrieval basket’ by fluid flow,” but the Court previously construed the term “retrieval basket” and found “requiring the claims to specify precise methods or procedures for a particle’s removal from the human body would add improper limitations to the claims that are beyond the scope required.” As to enablement, the Court found “there are material disputes as to whether the specification and prior art enable the limitation of a device catching ‘a solid particle having a maximum cross-sectional dimension greater than a maximum cross-sectional dimension of the distal end of the metal tube transverse to the central longitudinal axis of the metal tube.’”
The case is captioned EVM Systems, LLC v. Rex Medical, L.P., et al., 13-CV-184, in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
By: Christopher J. Stankus