throbber
Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`No. 2013-1650
`
`
`
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE LP,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`OSSUR HF and OSSUR AMERICAS, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN
`CASE NO. 13-CV-0891, JUDGE CORMAC J. CARNEY
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
`ÖSSUR HF AND ÖSSUR AMERICAS, INC.
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`BRENTON R. BABCOCK Counsel of Record
`NICHOLAS M. ZOVKO
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`(949) 760-0404
`
`Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees
`Össur hf and Össur Americas, Inc.
`
`
`
`November 1, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`Össur Ex. 1035
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Appellees Össur hf and Össur Americas, Inc.
`
`(“Össur”) certifies the following:
`
`1.
`
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`
`
`
`Össur hf and Össur Americas, Inc.
`
`2.
`
`The name of the real party in interest represented by me is:
`
`Not applicable.
`
`3.
`
`All parent corporation and any publicly held companies that own 10
`
`percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`
`
`
`Össur Americas, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Össur hf.
`
`4.
`
`The names of the law firms and the partners or associates that
`
`appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency
`
`or are expected to appear in the court are:
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP: Brenton R.
`
`Babcock, Nicholas M. Zovko, and David T. Okano.
`
`
`
` KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 1, 2013 By: /s/ Brenton R. Babcock
`
`Brenton R. Babcock
`
`Nicholas M. Zovko
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
`Össur hf and Össur Americas, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ................................................................... ix
`
`Page No.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ........................................................................ ix
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Counterstatement of the Issue .......................................................................... 1 
`
`Counterstatement of the Case .......................................................................... 1 
`
`III. Counterstatement of the Facts ......................................................................... 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Background ........................................................................................... 2 
`
`The ’726 patent and the parties’ commercial products ......................... 6 
`
`The district court’s determination that Otto Bock failed to
`show a likelihood of success on the merits ........................................... 9 
`
`IV. Summary of Argument .................................................................................. 12 
`
`V.
`
`Standard of Review ........................................................................................ 15 
`
`VI. Argument ....................................................................................................... 16 
`
`THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINED
`OTTO BOCK IS NOT LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE
`MERITS OF ANY OF ITS CLAIMS ........................................................... 16 
`A. 
`The district court correctly identified the structures
`described in the written description corresponding to the
`means-plus-function limitations in the asserted claims ...................... 17 
`
`1. 
`
`The written description links a polyurethane sleeve
`and narrow ring “annular seal” to the “means for
`sealing” ...................................................................................... 19 
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`Page No.
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`The district court did not import limitations into
`the “means for sealing” ............................................................. 24 
`
`The written description links a regulator, vacuum
`reservoir, and piston/cylinder pump and shock
`absorber described in the ’274 application to the
`“means to maintain” .................................................................. 28 
`
`The district court did not clearly err by relying on
`the ’274 application for disclosure of structure for
`the “weight-actuated vacuum pump” ........................................ 31 
`
`B. 
`
`The district court did not clearly err by analyzing the
`entire specification in context and relying on the
`structures described in the written description .................................... 34 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Otto Bock's position misapplies dependent claims
`and 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4 ............................................................ 35 
`
`Structure corresponding to means-plus-function
`limitations cannot be disclosed
`in dependent
`claims, detached from the written description .......................... 36 
`
`Dependent claims cannot expand the scope of an
`independent claim ..................................................................... 41 
`
`C. 
`
`Testimony of Otto Bock’s expert cannot substitute for the
`absence of structure disclosed by
`the generalized
`recitation of “annular seal” and “weight-actuated vacuum
`pump” in the dependent claims ........................................................... 44 
`
`1. 
`
`Otto Bock’s expert provides no credible opinion
`regarding what a skilled artisan would understand
`by the words “annular seal” in context of the entire
`specification .............................................................................. 45 
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 5 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`Page No.
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The generalized recitation of “annular seal” fails to
`provide clear notice of the scope of the asserted
`claims ........................................................................................ 47 
`
`Otto Bock’s expert provides no credible opinion of
`any structure disclosed by the words “weight-
`actuated vacuum pump” ............................................................ 51 
`
`D.  Össur’s products do not infringe the asserted claims .......................... 53 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The accused products are not structurally identical
`to any disclosed “means for sealing” ........................................ 55 
`
`The accused products are not structurally identical
`to any disclosed “means to maintain” ....................................... 58 
`
`The accused products are not equivalent to any
`disclosed “means for sealing” or “means to
`maintain” ................................................................................... 60 
`
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 61 
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 6 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Alcon Research, LTD. v. Apotex Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 35, 36
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 16
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 49, 50
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices,
`198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................ 32, 33, 48, 49
`
`Ballard Med. v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp.,
`268 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 23
`
`Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp.,
`490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .....................................................................passim
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 23
`
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.,
`250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................... 48, 49
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................ 24, 25, 56, 57
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co.,
`224 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 26
`
`Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs.,
`138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................14, 44, 46, 51, 53
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 7 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Digital-Vending Svcs. Int’l v. Univ. of Phoenix,
`672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Page No(s).
`
`In re Benno,
`768 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................... 36, 37
`
`In re Donaldson Co.,
`16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) ...................................................... 18, 34
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 32
`
`J&M Corp. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.,
`269 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 54
`
`Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., Inc.,
`208 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...................................................................passim
`
`Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.,
`939 F.2d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ........................................... 14, 41, 42, 43, 53, 59
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 710 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 33
`
`Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................... 18, 43, 44, 50, 51, 53
`
`Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC,
`671 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................17, 18, 22, 28, 41
`
`Micro Chem. Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 40
`
`N. Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp.,
`908 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 37
`
`Noah Sys. Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 50
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 8 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp.,
`185 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................ 24, 54, 57, 60
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................passim
`
`Pressure Prods. Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd.,
`599 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................ 13, 38, 47, 51
`
`Radio Steel & Mfg. Co. v. MTD Prods. Inc.,
`731 F.2d 840 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ...................................................................... 56, 57
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .....................................................................passim
`
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`470 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Serrano v. Telelar Corp.,
`111 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. DePuy-Motech, Inc.,
`74 F.3d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Unidynamics v. Corp. v. Automatic Prods. Int’l,
`157 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009)., ............................................................ 22, 25, 26
`
`Valmont Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co.,
`983 F.2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................. 17, 18, 54
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 47
`
`Vulcan Eng’g Co. Inc. v. Fata Grp. S.p.A.,
`278 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 56
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 9 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Page No(s).
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 ........................................................................................... 37, 39
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 ..................................................................................... 18, 34, 39
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4 ........................................................................................... 35, 36
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ..........................................................................................passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 10 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`No other appeal in or from this civil action was previously before this or any
`
`other appellate court. No case is known to counsel for defendants/appellees to be
`
`pending in this or any other court that will directly affect or be directly affected by
`
`this Court’s decision in the pending appeal.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`
`
`The district court has jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a)
`
`and 1367(a). The district court entered an order denying the motion of plaintiff-
`
`appellant Otto Bock HealthCare LP (“Otto Bock”) for a preliminary injunction on
`
`August 22, 2013. Otto Bock filed a notice of appeal on August 28, 2013. This
`
`Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1).
`
`-ix-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 11 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`I. COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
`
`Did the district court clearly err in finding that Otto Bock failed to establish
`
`a likelihood of success that the accused products infringe U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,726,726 (“the ’726 patent”) and abuse its discretion in denying Otto Bock’s
`
`motion for a preliminary injunction? Did the district court commit legal error in
`
`construing two means-plus-function limitations to cover the corresponding
`
`structures described in the written description of the ’726 patent, and equivalents
`
`thereof?
`
`II. COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`On June 12, 2013, Otto Bock filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, patent
`
`infringement by Össur hf and Össur Americas, Inc. (“Össur”). A38. On July 23,
`
`2013, Otto Bock filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction of certain Össur
`
`products based on alleged infringement of Claims 6, 9, 15, and 18 of the ’726
`
`patent. A52-57; Br. 6. On August 22, 2013, the district court denied Otto Bock’s
`
`motion. A12(3-5). The district court held that Otto Bock is not likely to succeed
`
`on the merits of any of its claims, and Otto Bock did not establish that it is entitled
`
`to the drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction. Id.; A5(3-10).
`
`In particular, with respect to two undisputed means-plus-function claim
`
`limitations, the district court determined that Otto Bock is unlikely to succeed on
`
`the merits of its patent infringement claims because the accused products do not
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 12 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`contain structures that are either identical or equivalent to the structures in the
`
`written description of the ’726 patent corresponding to those limitations. A6(18-
`
`22). Otto Bock filed a notice of appeal on August 28, 2013. A2958-59.1
`
`III. COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE FACTS
`
`A. Background
`
`Össur is a global leader in the area of non-invasive orthopaedics. In
`
`particular, Össur provides innovative products and technologies in the fields of
`
`prosthetics, orthotics, bracing and supports, and compression therapy to improve
`
`the mobility of people all over the world. Össur’s innovative products include its
`
`Unity™ module, Seal-In® V liner, and Re-Flex prosthetic foot modules. These
`
`products can be used to create an artificial lower limb for amputees.
`
`Suspension liner systems are widely used in prosthetic systems for residual
`
`limbs to stabilize soft tissue, assist in circulation of the residual limb, and add
`
`comfort. A1943(¶0004). They are often used with vacuum sockets to improve
`
`comfort and skin protection of the residual limb and to “suspend” the limb in the
`
`socket, thereby attaching the socket and prosthetic foot to the limb using vacuum
`
`suction. Id. Vacuum suspension systems using combinations of sockets, liners and
`
`
`1
`Otto Bock’s “Introduction and Statement of the Case” does not
`comport with Rule 28(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and
`includes substantive argument properly reserved for other sections of the brief.
`Össur responds to those arguments in the section of its brief prescribed by this
`Court’s Rules.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 13 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`other coverings, and mechanical pumps have been used by amputees since the
`
`early 1900s. A2097-99.
`
`In December 2010, Össur began developing an update to its existing
`
`prosthetic liner platform of products. A1883(4-5). In January 2013, Össur
`
`introduced the Iceross Seal-In® V liner, which Össur recommends for use with a
`
`wide variety of products,
`
`including both expulsion and vacuum socket
`
`technologies. A1885-86. In November 2011, Össur began developing an
`
`improved vacuum suspension module for its existing liner and prosthetic foot
`
`technology. A1878(15-17). By late 2012, Össur was providing its Unity™ vacuum
`
`suspension module to prosthetists on a trial basis, and unveiled the Unity™ at an
`
`industry trade show in February 2013. A1878(18-22). Össur’s Seal-In® V liner
`
`(left) and Unity™ module (right) products are depicted below. A2039; A2041. The
`
`Unity™ is circled in red, and shown in combination with an Össur Re-Flex foot
`
`module.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 14 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`Össur’s Seal-In® V liner
`
`Össur’s Unity™ module
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As depicted above, “volume adaptive blades” on the inner surface of the
`
`Seal-In® V liner compensate for volume fluctuations and shape changes of an
`
`amputee’s residual limb by expanding and exerting pressure against the interior
`
`socket wall. A2077(19-22). A “dual-seal” mechanism—the wide outer membrane
`
`combined with two small rings—prevents the outer surface of the Seal-In® V liner
`
`from fully contacting the socket, resulting in varying levels of pressure by the
`
`Seal-In® V liner against the socket. A2078(15-27). This design ensures a more
`
`secure suspension seal between
`
`the Seal-In® V
`
`liner and
`
`the socket.
`
`A1885(12-15); A2078(23-27). Össur’s Unity™ is positioned on the foot module
`
`and uses a heel-actuated membrane to create suction instead of an air chamber.
`
`A2086(5-22). The Unity™ is lightweight, and is designed to maintain a
`
`comfortable socket fit. A1878(25-27). The Unity™ in combination with Össur’s
`
`innovative Iceross Seal-In® V liner provides unrestricted mobility to patients
`
`without the use of a sleeve. A1878-79.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 15 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`Össur has expended significant resources to successfully develop its Seal-
`
`In® V liner and Unity™ products. For example, Össur has invested more than
`
`11,000 working hours and $850,000 on design projects for the Seal-In® V liner.
`
`A2039(5-8). Össur has invested more than 7,500 working hours and $800,000 on
`
`research and development for the Unity™ module. A2040(21-23). Össur has also
`
`filed several patent applications to protect innovative features of the Seal-In® V
`
`liner and Unity™ module. A1883(16-23); A1881(16-22).
`
`
`
`Otto Bock sells Harmony and Triton Harmony vacuum pump systems,
`
`which incorporate a socket, a liner, a thin sheath, a polyurethane suspension sleeve,
`
`and a dual-function piston/cylinder pump and shock absorber. A282, 288-90. Otto
`
`Bock’s Harmony P2 (left) and P3 (right) systems are depicted below. A253; A273.
`
`Otto Bock’s Harmony P2
`
`Otto Bock’s Harmony P3
`
`
`
`
`
`Össur informed Otto Bock of its Seal-In® V liner and Unity™ module in or
`
`around September 2012. A2042-43. Over the next few months, Össur provided
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 16 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`Otto Bock with detailed
`
`technical
`
`information regarding
`
`these products.
`
`A2043(5-14). In February 2013, Össur notified Otto Bock that Össur had begun
`
`selling its Unity™ module. Throughout this period, Otto Bock expressed no
`
`concerns about Össur’s activities. Id.(15-26). In June 2013, without warning, Otto
`
`Bock filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, infringement of the ’726 patent by
`
`Össur. Br. 6; A2044(3-4). Six weeks later, Otto Bock filed its motion for a
`
`preliminary injunction. A52-54. The district court determined that Otto Bock
`
`failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of any of its claims.
`
`A2(n.1), A5(3-10), A12(n.10). On that basis, the district court denied Otto Bock’s
`
`motion. A12(5).
`
`B.
`
`The ’726 patent and the parties’ commercial products
`
`The ’726 patent describes a vacuum socket for amputees that incorporates,
`
`inter alia, a liner, a single socket, and a vacuum source to draw the residual limb
`
`into firm and total contact with the socket. A27(Col.4:39-60). According to Otto
`
`Bock, sockets, liners and other limb coverings, and vacuum sources were known in
`
`the prior art. A26-27(Col.1:63-3:52). Total contact was known to prevent the loss
`
`of residual limb volume. A27(Col.3:25-31). As such, the alleged inventions of the
`
`’726 patent are directed to two purportedly new liner designs to seal the socket
`
`cavity and a purportedly new combination piston/cylinder pump and shock
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 17 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`absorber to maintain vacuum in the socket cavity. A620-21; A705-1086;
`
`A177(15-16).
`
`Otto Bock chose to recite the alleged inventions of the ’726 patent using
`
`“means” language that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Otto Bock does not dispute
`
`that the claims recite means-plus-function limitations. Br. 22. Claims 1 and 10
`
`recite a “means for sealing the socket cavity” and Claims 1 and 11 recite a “means
`
`to maintain [a] vacuum in the [socket] cavity.”2 Claims 6 and 18 depend from
`
`Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and further limit the “means for sealing” to an
`
`“annular seal.” Claims 9 and 15 depend from Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and
`
`further limit the “means to maintain” to a “weight-actuated vacuum pump.”
`
`The written description and the drawings of the ’726 patent identify two
`
`alternatives corresponding to the “means for sealing”: (1) a polyurethane sleeve;
`
`and (2) a narrow annular ring. A633(n.45). The “annular seal” is depicted in
`
`Figures 17, 18, and 20 of the ’726 patent as a narrow ring around the liner with a
`
`rectangular cross section. A23-25. Otto Bock has also identified Figures 17 and
`
`18 of the ’726 patent as disclosing the purportedly “new” liner designs. A621(2-
`
`11).
`
`
`2
`Claim 1 of the ’726 patent, from which Claims 6 and 9 depend, recites
`a “means to maintain a vacuum in the socket cavity.” Claim 11, from which Claim
`15 depends, recites a “means to maintain vacuum in the cavity.” A32-
`33(Cols.14:56, 15:51).
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 18 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
` The ’726 patent’s
`two purportedly
`“new” liner designs
`
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, the written description identifies three alternatives corresponding
`
`to the “means to maintain”: (1) a regulator means; (2) a vacuum reservoir, and (3)
`
`a piston/cylinder pump and shock absorber disclosed in U.S. Patent App. No.
`
`09/534,274 (“the ’274 application”). A634(n.48). Otto Bock has identified Figure
`
`25 of the ’274 application as a “representative diagram[]” of the piston/cylinder
`
`pump and shock absorber. A620(1-20).
`
`cylinder
`(blue)
`
`piston
`(yellow)
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 19 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`C. The district court’s determination that Otto Bock failed to show a
`likelihood of success on the merits
`
`The district court determined that Össur’s accused products are neither
`
`identical nor equivalent to the structures described in the written description and
`
`drawings corresponding to the two means-plus-function limitations at issue.
`
`A7(12-21); A11(3-18). In doing so, the district court relied on testimony from
`
`Össur’s expert Dr. Steven A. Gard that a skilled artisan would have understood
`
`Össur’s Seal-In® V liner to perform the function of “sealing the socket cavity” in a
`
`different way than the narrow ring structure described in the ’726 patent, and
`
`Össur’s Unity™ module to perform the function of “maintaining vacuum in the
`
`socket cavity” in a different way than the combination piston/cylinder pump and
`
`shock absorber described in the ’274 application.3 Id.
`
`The district court discounted testimony from Otto Bock’s purported expert
`
`Mr. James Jay Martin that “none of the features [of Össur’s Seal-In® V liner] are
`
`necessary to perform the recited function” as irrelevant to the proper inquiry for
`
`equivalence. A8(14-19). The district court also rejected Otto Bock’s contention
`
`
`3
`Össur also demonstrated that Otto Bock has failed to show irreparable
`harm (A2058-59), the balance of equities favors Össur (A2060), and the denial of
`Otto Bock’s motion is in the public interest (A2060-61). For example, Össur
`submitted a declaration from a financial expert witness, Scott Hampton,
`demonstrating that Otto Bock’s alleged harms can be compensated by money
`damages and/or are speculative. A1987-89; A2058(12-15). As such, any
`suggestion by Otto Bock that “the foundation for irreparable harm” is “undisputed”
`is, in fact, disputed. Br. 5-6, 8.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 20 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`the dependent claims of the ’726 patent “stand alone.” A10(8-24). Citing Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., the court reminded Otto Bock that “claims must be read in view of
`
`the specification.” 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For example, with
`
`respect to the “means to maintain” limitation, the district court explained that Otto
`
`Bock’s proposed construction would allow Claims 9 and 15 to impermissibly
`
`“cover an indefinite number of structures.” A10(19-24).
`
`Otto Bock contends that the district court abused its discretion by
`
`determining that the generalized recitation of “annular seal” and “weight-actuated
`
`vacuum pump” in the asserted dependent claims do not disclose additional
`
`structures, “independent of the specific examples found in the figures or
`
`incorporated by reference in the figures of the specification.” A2872-73;
`
`A2754(9-11).4 Otto Bock contends that the district court clearly erred by failing to
`
`rely on Mr. Martin’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood the
`
`dependent claims to be “stand-alone embodiment[s],” that “refer[] more generally
`
`to a structure broader than the specific example as shown in” Figure 18 of the
`
`’726 patent (“means for sealing”) and Figures 17 and 22 of the ’274 application
`
`(“means to maintain”). A2754(16-17); A2755(9-13); A2758(12-16). Otto Bock
`
`also contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to rely on Mr.
`
`Martin’s testimony that Össur’s products are identical to the structures allegedly
`
`
`4
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in quotations has been added.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 21 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`disclosed corresponding to the means-plus-function limitations at issue because the
`
`Seal-In® V liner “ha[s] an annular shape” and the Unity™ module is “weight-
`
`actuated.” A2756(11-19); A2759(6-11).
`
`The parties agree, and the district court found, that the asserted claims recite
`
`two means-plus-function claim limitations governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6: (1) a
`
`“means for sealing the socket cavity”; and (2) a “means to maintain a vacuum in
`
`the socket cavity.”5 Br. 9-10. The parties also agree, and the district court also
`
`found, that the claims themselves recite the functions of those limitations, namely,
`
`“sealing the socket cavity” and “maintain[ing] a vacuum in the socket cavity.”
`
`Finally, the parties agree, and the district court found, that the ’726 patent discloses
`
`two structures for the “means for sealing” and three structures for the “means for
`
`maintaining.”
`
`Accordingly, the focus of the parties’ dispute is quite narrow: Do the
`
`asserted dependent claims’ further recitations that the means comprise “an annular
`
`seal” and “a weight-actuated vacuum pump,” respectively, remove those
`
`limitations from the strictures of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6?
`
`
`5
`Claim 18 does not recite the “means to maintain a vacuum in the
`socket cavity.”
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 22 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Otto Bock’s
`
`motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court did not clearly err by tying
`
`the means-plus-function limitations of the asserted claims to the structures
`
`described in the written description of the ’726 patent. In doing so, the district
`
`court correctly determined that Otto Bock is not likely to succeed on the merits of
`
`any of its claims, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
`
`Otto Bock’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
`
`The parties agree that the asserted claims include two mean-plus-function
`
`limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Br. 22. The parties agree that the
`
`written description of the ’726 patent expressly links a nonfoamed, nonporous
`
`polyurethane sleeve and a narrow ring having a rectangular cross section to the
`
`“means for sealing” claim limitation. A633(n.45). Similarly, the parties agree that
`
`the written description expressly links a regulator means, a vacuum reservoir, and a
`
`piston/cylinder pump and shock absorber as described in the ’274 application to
`
`the “means to maintain” claim limitation. A634(n.48).
`
`The district court did not clearly err by determining that Össur’s Seal-In® V
`
`liner and Unity™ module do not have structures identical to either the narrow ring
`
`or the combination piston/cylinder pump and shock absorber that are described in
`
`the ’726 patent. A7(12-19); A11(3-6). Similarly, the district court did not clearly
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case: 13-1650 Document: 21 Page: 23 Filed: 11/01/2013
`
`
`
`err by relying on testimony from Dr. Gard to determine that Össur’s accused
`
`products do not have equivalent structures for performing the claimed functions of
`
`“sealing the socket cavity” or “maintaining vacuum in the socket cavity” recited in
`
`the asserted claims. A7-8; A11(7-18).
`
`Otto Bock seeks a result that would eviscerate the statutory requirements
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Otto Bock seeks to expand the scope of the two means-
`
`plus-function lim

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket