`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`QXMÉDICAL, LLC,
`
`Case No. 17‐CV‐1969 (PJS/TNL)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ORDER
`
`VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, LLC; TELEFLEX
`INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L.; and ARROW
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Courtland C. Merrill, Philip J. Kaplan, and Ariel O. Howe, ANTHONY
`OSTLUND BAER & LOUWAGIE P.A., for plaintiff.
`
`Luke L. Dauchot and Alyse Wu, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP; and Tom Vitt
`and Patrick J. O’Rear, JONES DAY, for defendants.
`
`This lawsuit involves six patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,048,032 (the “‘032 patent”),
`
`8,142,413 (the “‘413 patent”), RE45,380 (the “‘380 patent”), RE45,760 (the “‘760 patent”),
`
`RE45,776 (the “‘776 patent”), and RE46,116 (the “‘116 patent”). All six patents descend
`
`from a common patent application and share a common specification and common
`
`drawings. The patents are owned by defendant Teleflex Innovations S.à.r.l., whose
`
`parent corporation acquired defendant Vascular Solutions, LLC, in February 2017.
`
`A third defendant, Arrow International, Inc., has the right to sell products practicing the
`
`patents. For convenience, the Court will refer to the defendants collectively as
`
`“Vascular Solutions.”
`
`Page 1
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 2 of 32
`
`In April 2017, Vascular Solutions accused plaintiff QXMédical, LLC
`
`(“QXMédical”) of patent infringement. In response, QXMédical brought this action,
`
`seeking a declaration that its “Boosting Catheter” does not infringe any of Vascular
`
`Solutions’s patents. This matter is before the Court for construction of certain terms of
`
`the patents‐in‐suit in accordance with Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S.
`
`370, 390‐91 (1996).
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Vascular Solutions’s patents relate to a medical device known as a “guide
`
`extension catheter.” A guide extension catheter is used by a heart surgeon to deliver an
`
`interventional cardiology device (such as a balloon or stent) into a coronary artery.
`
`Coronary arteries are the arteries that supply oxygenated blood from the aorta to
`
`the heart muscle. The buildup of plaque inside a coronary artery can create a
`
`“stenosis”—that is, a narrowing of the coronary artery—that decreases blood flow to
`
`the heart and increases the risk of heart attack. A coronary artery stenosis looks
`
`something like this:
`
`‐2‐
`
`Page 2
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 3 of 32
`
`Root Decl. ¶ 8 (ECF No. 59).
`
`One way to treat a stenosis is to use a balloon or stent to reopen the coronary
`
`artery. Id. ¶ 10. To do so, of course, the surgeon must deliver the balloon or stent to the
`
`site of the stenosis. Typically, the surgeon will first insert a long, thin tube called a
`
`“guide catheter” into the patient’s femoral artery (near the patient’s groin) or the
`
`patient’s radial artery (near the patient’s wrist). Then the surgeon will push the guide
`
`catheter through the patient’s body until the tip of the guide catheter reaches the
`
`opening (or “ostium”) of the coronary artery. Next, the surgeon will push a long, thin
`
`wire—known as a “guidewire”—through the guide catheter, into the coronary artery,
`
`and through the site of the stenosis. Finally, the surgeon will slide a balloon or stent
`
`‐3‐
`
`Page 3
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 4 of 32
`
`along the guidewire to the site of the stenosis, where the balloon or stent will be
`
`expanded. Id. ¶¶ 11‐13.
`
`The guide catheter is relatively rigid and often has a curved tip. Id. ¶ 15. The
`
`combination of these two characteristics means that it is generally unsafe for a surgeon
`
`to extend the guide catheter past the ostium and into the coronary artery. Id. ¶¶ 15‐16.
`
`That is why a surgeon uses a guidewire to deliver the balloon or stent to the site of the
`
`stenosis. Sometimes, though, a surgeon has to push a balloon or stent through a
`
`particularly difficult stenosis. In this situation, the resulting backwards force can cause
`
`the guide catheter to dislodge, preventing the surgeon from successfully deploying the
`
`balloon or stent. The dotted lines in the diagram below illustrate this problem:
`
`Id. ¶¶ 12, 15‐17.
`
`To solve this problem, inventors came up with the idea of using a second
`
`catheter within the guide catheter. In this “coaxial” arrangement, the inner catheter (the
`
`‐4‐
`
`Page 4
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 5 of 32
`
`“child catheter”) is straighter and more flexible than the outer catheter (the “mother
`
`catheter”). This allows the child catheter to be pushed past the end of the mother
`
`catheter and into the coronary artery, thereby anchoring the mother catheter and
`
`reducing the likelihood of the mother catheter dislodging. The picture below illustrates
`
`the use of a child catheter:
`
`Id. ¶ 18.
`
`Vascular Solutions did not invent the mother‐and‐child catheter system. But
`
`Vascular Solutions combined the mother‐and‐child catheter system with another
`
`concept known as a “monorail,” “rapid exchange,” or “sliding rail” system. Id. ¶ 22.
`
`A typical child catheter is a long tube that runs along a guidewire from the beginning of
`
`the mother catheter (that is, from the opening in the patient’s femoral artery or radial
`
`artery) past the end of the mother catheter (that is, into the coronary artery). By
`
`contrast, a monorail catheter is not tubular along its entire length. Instead, a monorail
`
`catheter combines a short tube at the “distal” end (that is, the end closest to the heart)
`
`‐5‐
`
`Page 5
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 6 of 32
`
`with a long non‐tubular push rod at the “proximal” end (that is, the end closest to the
`
`surgeon). The push rod “is used to push and retract the catheter but runs independent
`
`of and next to the guidewire.” Id. ¶ 21. The drawing below depicts a monorail catheter:
`
`Id. This drawing refers to the child catheter as “Guidewire Lumen.” All of the items
`
`depicted in this drawing would be situated within the mother catheter.
`
`The tip of Vascular Solutions’s child catheter is a flexible straight tube that is
`
`small enough to fit inside a standard guide catheter but large enough to accommodate
`
`the delivery of balloons and stents. Id. ¶ 23. Near or at the junction of the flexible tube
`
`and the push rod is a side opening that serves as an entry port—first for the guidewire,
`
`and then for the balloon or stent that is pushed along the guidewire, through the
`
`flexible tube, and into the coronary artery. Root Decl. ¶¶ 23‐24.1
`
`1It should be noted that the commercial embodiment described in the Root
`declaration—as well as some of the devices claimed in the patents‐in‐suit—do not look
`much like the embodiments described and illustrated in the specification.
`
`‐6‐
`
`Page 6
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 7 of 32
`
`In 2006, Vascular Solutions2 filed a patent application for a monorail‐type child
`
`catheter. This application was ultimately issued as the ‘032 patent. Claim 1 of the ‘032
`
`patent contains most of the terms whose meaning is contested in this Markman
`
`proceeding, and the parties agree that each of the contested terms has the same
`
`meaning across all of the patents‐in‐suit. Claim 1 of the ‘032 patent claims the
`
`following:
`
`1. A device for use with a standard guide catheter, . . . the device
`comprising:
`
`a flexible tip portion defining a tubular structure having a
`circular cross‐section and a length that is shorter than the
`predefined length of the continuous lumen of the guide
`catheter, the tubular structure having a cross‐sectional outer
`diameter sized to be insertable through the cross‐sectional
`inner diameter of the continuous lumen of the guide catheter
`and defining a coaxial lumen having a cross‐sectional inner
`diameter through which interventional cardiology devices
`are insertable; and
`
`a substantially rigid portion proximal of and operably
`connected to, and more rigid along a longitudinal axis than,
`the flexible tip portion and defining a rail structure without
`a lumen and having a maximal cross‐sectional dimension at
`a proximal portion that is smaller than the cross‐sectional
`outer diameter of the flexible tip portion and having a length
`that, when combined with the length of the flexible distal tip
`portion, defines a total length of the device along the
`longitudinal axis that is longer than the length of the
`continuous lumen of the guide catheter,
`
`2Technically, Howard Root and his co‐inventors applied for the patent, but after
`the patent was issued, they assigned it to Vascular Solutions.
`
`‐7‐
`
`Page 7
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 8 of 32
`
`such that when at least a distal portion of the flexible tip
`portion is extended distally of the distal end of the guide
`catheter, at least a portion of the proximal portion of the
`substantially rigid portion extends proximally through the
`hemostatic valve in common with interventional cardiology
`devices that are insertable into the guide catheter.
`
`‘032 patent at 10:21‐54.
`
`II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Courts, not juries, construe patent claims. Markman, 517 U.S. at 391. Disputed
`
`terms in a claim must be construed in the context of both that individual claim and “the
`
`entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Indeed, the specification, read in light of the prosecution
`
`history, is the primary basis for construing patent claims. Id. at 1315. Courts may also
`
`rely on “extrinsic evidence”—anything other than the patent and its prosecution
`
`history—but that evidence is less important than the intrinsic record. Id. at 1317.
`
`In general, claim language means whatever it would have meant, ordinarily and
`
`customarily, to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the patent
`
`application was filed. Id. at 1312‐13. In some cases, the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of claim language to a person of ordinary skill in the art may be identical to the
`
`meaning of that language to a lay person who is not skilled in the art. See id. at 1314
`
`(acknowledging that claim construction sometimes “involves little more than the
`
`application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words”).
`
`‐8‐
`
`Page 8
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 9 of 32
`
`Neither of the parties has devoted much attention to defining a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Markman proceeding. QXMédical’s expert
`
`identifies a person of ordinary skill in the art as “a person having a bachelor’s, or higher
`
`level, degree in either biomedical or mechanical engineering, or a medical degree,
`
`combined with extensive experience working for at least three years as an
`
`interventional cardiologist, interventional radiologist, cardiothoracic surgeon,
`
`interventionalist, or biomedical engineer, biomedical device designer and/or
`
`manufacturer.” ECF No. 36‐3 ¶ 15. Vascular Solutions’s expert identifies a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as a person having “(1) a minimum of five years of experience
`
`performing or observing interventional cardiology procedures and (2) a minimum of
`
`five years of experience designing or manufacturing catheters or other devices used in
`
`such procedures . . . .” ECF No. 36‐2 ¶ 34. Neither party has argued that anything turns
`
`on the differences between these definitions. Indeed, neither party has argued (or at
`
`least clearly argued) that someone of ordinary skill in the art would interpret any of the
`
`disputed language differently than would an educated lay person.
`
`‐9‐
`
`Page 9
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 10 of 32
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. “substantially rigid”
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘032 patent describes the proximal portion of the claimed device as
`
`being “substantially rigid.” ‘032 patent at 10:38. Both parties ask the Court to construe
`
`this term.
`
`QXMédical argues that “substantially rigid” means “largely, but not wholly
`
`unable to bend or be forced out of shape; not flexible.” ECF No. 36‐1 at 2. It is not
`
`apparent what would be gained by this construction. “Largely unable to bend” is no
`
`clearer or more specific than “substantially rigid.” And “not flexible”—which connotes
`
`no flexibility—would result in a device that does not work, as the substantially rigid
`
`portion must be able to navigate the tortuous vascular system of a human being.
`
`Vascular Solutions argues for a functional definition of “substantially rigid”:
`
`“rigid enough to allow the device . . . to be advanced within the guide catheter.” ECF
`
`No. 36‐1 at 2. It is not surprising that Vascular Solutions proposes a functional
`
`definition. Unlike patents that provide specific guidance regarding the meaning of
`
`terms of degree such as “substantially,”3 the only real evidence that the patents‐in‐suit
`
`3See, e.g., BreathableBaby, LLC v. Crown Crafts, Inc., No. 12‐CV‐0094 (PJS/TNL),
`2013 WL 5230724, at *5 (D. Minn. Sept. 17, 2013) (specification defined “a substantial
`portion of a side rail” as “at least two‐thirds of the side rail”).
`
`‐10‐
`
`Page 10
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 11 of 32
`
`provide regarding the meaning of the term “substantially rigid” is their description of
`
`the function of the substantially rigid portion.
`
`Nonetheless, Vascular Solutions’s argument—that a structural limitation should
`
`be defined in functional terms—initially gave this Court pause. After all, the Federal
`
`Circuit has held that “[a]n invention claimed in purely structural terms generally resists
`
`functional limitation.” Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 266 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001). That is particularly true with respect to functions that are not recited in the
`
`patent itself.
`
`For example, in Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001), one
`
`of the claims described a solid detergent cast as “substantially uniform.” Id. at 1361.
`
`The patentee persuaded the district court to construe “substantially uniform” to mean
`
`“a level of continuity of the elements from top‐to‐bottom throughout the cast such that
`
`a homogeneous cleaning solution is formed over the life of the cast.” Id. at 1363. On
`
`appeal, however, the Federal Circuit noted that nothing in the intrinsic record provided
`
`a basis for “adding a functional limitation” to the term “substantially uniform.” Id.
`
`at 1366. Therefore, the Federal Circuit construed “substantially uniform” to mean
`
`“largely, but not wholly the same in form,” and declined to add a “functional limitation
`
`to this phrase.” Id. at 1369.
`
`‐11‐
`
`Page 11
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 12 of 32
`
`At the same time, the Federal Circuit has shown no reluctance to construe claim
`
`limitations functionally when such a construction is supported by the intrinsic record.
`
`For example, in Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Ave, Inc., 511 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the
`
`patent claimed a stent with a “smooth surface.” Id. at 1163. The district court defined
`
`the term “smooth” structurally to mean “continuously even . . . , without roughness,
`
`points, bumps or ridges . . . .” Id. at 1178. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit
`
`relied on the prosecution history to conclude that “the patentee intended for the term
`
`‘smooth’ to be defined functionally, so that a stent would be considered ‘smooth’ if it
`
`was smooth enough to be capable of intraluminal delivery.” Id. at 1180. Using that
`
`functional definition, the Federal Circuit concluded that the defendant’s competing
`
`product “infringed the ‘smooth surface’ limitation” because there was no dispute that it
`
`was “capable of intraluminal delivery.” Id.
`
`Similarly, in Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the
`
`Federal Circuit adopted a functional definition of “substantially uniform.” In Medrad,
`
`the patent related to radio frequency coils that were used to create magnetic resonance
`
`imaging (“MRI”) images. Id. at 1315. Citing Ecolab, the patentee argued that “it is never
`
`proper for a court, when construing claim terms, to consider how a claimed device
`
`functions.” Id. at 1319. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, calling the
`
`patentee’s reading of Ecolab “unsound” and holding that it is “entirely proper to
`
`‐12‐
`
`Page 12
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 13 of 32
`
`consider the functions of an invention in seeking to determine the meaning of particular
`
`claim language.” Id. In Medrad, “the claim itself provide[d] little guidance” for how to
`
`construe the term “substantially uniform.” Id. But the preamble of the patent claimed
`
`“an imaging system for forming images of a region of interest.” Id. at 1320. The
`
`specification stated that one object of the invention was “to provide greater image
`
`uniformity than provided in the prior art.” Id. And an expert testified that “a
`
`substantially uniform magnetic field ‘means a sufficient uniformity to give a good
`
`image.’” Id. Therefore, the Federal Circuit defined a “substantially uniform magnetic
`
`field” functionally to mean “a field that is sufficiently uniform to obtain useful MRI
`
`images.” Id.
`
`As in Cordis and Medrad, Vascular Solutions’s proposed functional definition is
`
`amply supported by the record. That record makes at least two things clear about the
`
`substantially rigid portion of the claimed device:
`
`On the one hand, the substantially rigid portion must have a considerable degree
`
`of flexibility. Otherwise, it would not be able to navigate past sharp bends in the
`
`vascular system of a human being. This is clear from both the intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence. See, e.g., ECF No. 36‐2 ¶ 38 (stating that “the substantially rigid portion of the
`
`device must be flexible enough to navigate the curve in the aorta and femoral and iliac
`
`arteries and other angles in the arterial path”); see also Root Decl. ¶ 24 (describing the
`
`‐13‐
`
`Page 13
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 14 of 32
`
`substantially rigid portion of the embodiment as flexible enough “to bend to navigate
`
`the arch in the aorta”).
`
`On the other hand, the substantially rigid portion must be rigid enough to push
`
`the tubular structure through the guide catheter and into the coronary artery. Neither
`
`party contests this fact, which is supported not only by the specification’s description of
`
`the functioning of the device, but by claim 1’s focus on the degree of rigidity along the
`
`longitudinal axis: “a substantially rigid portion . . . more rigid along a longitudinal axis
`
`than[] the flexible tip portion . . . .” ‘032 patent at 10:39‐40. It is difficult to imagine why
`
`the claim would focus on the longitudinal rigidity of the substantially rigid portion
`
`unless the purpose of the “substantially rigid” limitation is to ensure that the
`
`substantially rigid portion will not buckle when it is used as a push rod.
`
`The prosecution history also reflects the examiner’s understanding that the
`
`purpose of the “substantially rigid” limitation is to ensure that the substantially rigid
`
`portion can function as a push rod. Specifically, the examiner expressed his
`
`understanding that “substantially rigid” was “only rigid enough to allow the device to
`
`be advanced within the guide catheter.” ECF No. 60‐2 at 12. The examiner’s use of the
`
`word “only” is puzzling, as it suggests that a push rod that is any more rigid than
`
`necessary would not be “substantially rigid.” That would be a counterintuitive
`
`construction that neither party advocates. But at a minimum, the examiner’s comments
`
`‐14‐
`
`Page 14
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 15 of 32
`
`provide further evidence that the function of the substantially rigid portion is to push
`
`the tubular structure through the guide catheter and into the coronary artery.
`
`In sum, given that Federal Circuit case law supports giving a functional
`
`definition to a structural term when such a construction is supported by the intrinsic
`
`record—and given that the intrinsic record in this case leaves little doubt that the main
`
`function of the substantially rigid portion is to act as a push rod—the Court accepts
`
`Vascular Solutions’s argument that “substantially rigid” should be defined in the
`
`patents‐in‐suit as “rigid enough to allow the device to be advanced within the guide
`
`catheter.”
`
`The Court notes that Vascular Solutions’ victory may be short‐lived—or even
`
`pyrrhic. QXMédical argues that Vascular Solutions’s construction cannot possibly be
`
`correct. First, QXMédical argues that the material that comprises the flexible tip portion
`
`is “rigid enough to allow the device to be advanced within the guide catheter.” In other
`
`words, according to QXMédical, if the flexible tubular structure were to be extended to
`
`run throughout the entire guide catheter (similar to a conventional child catheter), the
`
`flexible tubular structure could essentially act as its own push rod. Likewise,
`
`QXMédical argues that a guidewire is “rigid enough to allow the device to be advanced
`
`within the guide catheter.” In other words, QXMédical argues that if the flexible
`
`‐15‐
`
`Page 15
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 16 of 32
`
`tubular structure was attached to the end of a guidewire, the guidewire could push the
`
`structure through the guide catheter and into the coronary artery.
`
`Second, claim 1 of the ‘032 patent is crystal clear that the substantially rigid
`
`portion must be “more rigid . . . than[] the flexible tip portion.” ‘032 patent at 10:39‐40.
`
`Moreover, according to QXMédical, the specification indicates that the guidewire is
`
`flexible. Cf. ‘032 patent at 1:16‐29, 2:56‐62. Thus, concludes QXMédical, “substantially
`
`rigid” cannot mean “rigid enough to allow the device to be advanced within the guide
`
`catheter” because both the flexible tip portion and the guidewire are “rigid enough to
`
`allow the device to be advanced within the guide catheter” and the patents make clear
`
`that both the flexible tip portion and the guidewire are not “substantially rigid,” but
`
`instead “flexible.”
`
`QXMédical would have a compelling argument, but for one problem: The
`
`evidence in the record simply does not allow the Court to determine whether the factual
`
`premises of the argument are true. At the Markman hearing, QXMédical could not point
`
`to any record evidence proving that the flexible tip portion or the guidewire was rigid
`
`enough to act as a push rod. In its brief, QXMédical emphasized that the specification
`
`“states that the flexible tip portion, although flexible, can be advanced within the guide
`
`catheter.” ECF No. 63 at 12. But that’s a different point. It is one thing for the flexible
`
`tip portion to be rigid enough to be pushed, and another thing for the flexible tip portion
`
`‐16‐
`
`Page 16
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 17 of 32
`
`to be rigid enough to do the pushing. QXMédical also cited several paragraphs from the
`
`specification and claimed in a footnote that “the proximal portion of the child catheter is
`
`‘rigid enough to advance’ the distal portion of the catheter within the mother guide
`
`catheter . . . .” Id. at 12 n.3 (citing Root Decl. ¶ 17 and ‘032 patent at 2:17‐44). But the
`
`cited portions of the ‘032 patent describe the use of a conventional child catheter—that is,
`
`the long tubal child catheter of the prior art. See ‘032 patent at 2:17‐44. The record does
`
`not indicate whether the material that comprises a prior‐art child catheter is more or
`
`less rigid than the material that comprises the flexible tip portion of the patented
`
`inventions. At this point, then, the Court cannot conclude that Vascular Solutions’s
`
`proposed construction of “substantially rigid” would capture anything that the patents
`
`describe as “flexible.”
`
`B. “flexible”
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘032 patent describes the tip portion of the claimed device as being
`
`“flexible.” ‘032 patent at 10:29. QXMédical argues that “flexible” should be construed
`
`to mean “capable of bending; not rigid.” ECF No. 36‐1 at 5. Vascular Solutions argues
`
`that no construction of “flexible” is necessary and that “flexible” should instead be
`
`given its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. The Court agrees with Vascular Solutions.
`
`QXMédical’s proposed construction of “flexible” as “not rigid” would imply a
`
`complete absence of rigidity. Such a construction would not be consistent with the
`
`‐17‐
`
`Page 17
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 18 of 32
`
`claims and specification. In addition, construing “flexible” to mean “capable of
`
`bending” would not add anything to the plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`C. “rail structure”
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘032 patent provides that the “substantially rigid portion” must
`
`“defin[e] a rail structure without a lumen.” ‘032 patent at 10:40‐41. The parties dispute
`
`the meaning of “rail structure.”
`
`Every monorail system consists of at least three elements: (1) a rail, (2) a car that
`
`rides on the rail, and (3) a source of locomotion. It is clear that, in the patented devices,
`
`the “rail” is the guidewire. The flexible tubular portion of the device rides along the
`
`guidewire, as does the balloon or stent that follows. Nothing rides along the push rod.
`
`And thus, the “rail structure” that is defined by the substantially rigid portion cannot be
`
`the rail. That leaves the car and the source of locomotion as possibilities.
`
`QXMédical argues that “rail structure” refers to the car that rides along the
`
`guidewire. See ECF No. 56 at 29 (“[I]n order for the substantially rigid portion claimed
`
`in VSI’s patents to ‘defin[e] a rail structure[,]’ the substantially rigid portion must either
`
`surround or at least create a partial circumference portion to hold or ‘ride’ on the
`
`guidewire.”). Consistent with that argument, QXMédical proposes that “rail structure”
`
`be defined to mean a “full‐circumferential, greater than 180 degrees, hemicylindrical or
`
`arcuate‐shaped distal end [that is] able to ‘ride’ on a guidewire.” ECF No. 56 at 27.
`
`‐18‐
`
`Page 18
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 19 of 32
`
`One problem for QXMédical is that nothing in the patents‐in‐suit explicitly
`
`requires the “rail structure” that is defined by the substantially rigid portion to ride on
`
`the guidewire. And that is unsurprising. As the Court has already discussed, the main
`
`function of the substantially rigid portion is to push the flexible tip portion along the
`
`guidewire and into the coronary artery. It is the flexible tip portion—which, again, is
`
`the tube through which the guidewire is threaded—that rides along the guidewire. Not
`
`only is there no reason for the push rod to also ride along the guidewire, but, if it did so,
`
`it might interfere with the ability of a balloon or stent to later be moved along the same
`
`guidewire.
`
`QXMédical’s proposed construction runs into another problem. In order for the
`
`“rail structure” to function as a car, it would need a lumen—or something close to a
`
`lumen. QXMédical recognizes this fact in proposing to define the rail structure as being
`
`“full circumferential, greater than 180 degrees, hemicylindrical or arcuate‐shaped.” But
`
`the patents specifically forbid the rail structure from having a lumen. See ‘032 patent
`
`at 10:40‐41 (stating that the rail structure must be “without a lumen”). This means that
`
`the rail structure cannot be “full circumferential.” This also raises the question of why, if
`
`the rail structure is meant to be the car, the patents would provide that the car cannot
`
`have a lumen—the structure that would best allow it to ride along the guidewire
`
`without impeding the passage of balloons or stents.
`
`‐19‐
`
`Page 19
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 20 of 32
`
`Of course, a car does not have to be fully circumferential to ride on the
`
`guidewire. A less‐than‐fully‐circumferential car can still ride on the guidewire by
`
`gripping the guidewire rather tightly. But the problem with this approach has already
`
`been noted: Any car that gripped the guidewire tightly would impede the passage of a
`
`balloon or stent along the same guidewire. The specification specifically mentions that
`
`the rail segment must not “block[] use of the guide catheter” to deliver balloons and
`
`stents. ‘032 patent at 2:55‐56. QXMédical’s attempt to define “rail structure” to mean,
`
`in essence, the car that rides along the guidewire cannot be reconciled with the claims or
`
`specification.
`
`Given that the “rail structure” is neither the rail nor the car, the only major
`
`component left is the source of locomotion—i.e., the push rod. Reflecting that fact,
`
`Vascular Solutions asks that “rail structure” be defined as a “structure . . . that facilitates
`
`monorail or sliding rail delivery,” ECF No. 36‐1 at 6—a definition that is sufficiently
`
`broad to capture the push rod. The Court adopts Vascular Solutions’s proposed
`
`definition.
`
`‐20‐
`
`Page 20
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 21 of 32
`
`D. “lumen”
`
`As the Court has already mentioned, claim 1 of the ‘032 patent specifies that the
`
`rail structure cannot have a “lumen.” ‘032 patent at 10:40‐41. The parties disagree on
`
`the meaning of “lumen.” In other words, the parties disagree about what cannot be
`
`included in the rail structure.
`
`QXMédical asks the Court to construe “lumen” to mean a “passageway or
`
`opening.” ECF No. 36‐1 at 6. Vascular Solutions asks the Court to construe “lumen”
`
`more narrowly to mean a “passageway through which interventional cardiology
`
`devices are insertable.” Id. The Court declines to adopt either construction.
`
`As a threshold matter, the Court rejects Vascular Solutions’s suggestion that
`
`“lumen” refers to only some lumens—specifically, lumens that are large enough to
`
`accommodate the passage of balloons and stents. The Court does so for two reasons:
`
`First, claim 1 clearly specifies that the substantially rigid portion must define “a
`
`rail structure without a lumen.” ‘032 patent at 10:40‐41 (emphasis added). Claim 1 does
`
`not say that the rail structure can have a lumen, as long as the lumen is small. And this
`
`makes sense: As the specification makes clear—and as Vascular Systems itself has
`
`emphasized—it is important that the push rod take up as little space within the guide
`
`catheter as possible, so as to leave space for the passage of balloons and stents along the
`
`‐21‐
`
`Page 21
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 1413
`
`
`
`CASE 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL Document 102 Filed 10/30/18 Page 22 of 32
`
`guidewire. Requiring that the push rod have no lumen helps to accomplish that
`
`objective.
`
`Second, if the Court were to read a size limitation into the term “lumen,” the
`
`Court would render superfluous other language in the patents‐in‐suit. The claims and
`
`specification of the patents often mention a lumen, and almost every time that a lumen
`
`is mentioned, its size is specified. For example, claim 1 of the ‘032 patent describes “the
`
`continuous lumen of the guide catheter” as “having a circular cross‐sectional inner
`
`diameter sized such that interventional cardiology devices are insertable into and
`
`through the lumen.” ‘032 patent at 10:25‐28. Similarly, claim 1 describes the tip of the
`
`child catheter as “defining a coaxial lumen having a cross‐sectional inner diameter
`
`through which interventional cardiology devices are insertable.” Id. at 10:35‐38. If
`
`“lumen” meant what Vascular Solutions wants it to mean—a “passageway through
`
`which interventional cardiology devices are insertable”—then there would be no reason
`
`for the patents to provide (as they do repeatedly) that the lumens of both the guide
`
`catheter and flexible tip portion must be large enough to allow the passage of
`
`interventional cardiology devices. That size limitation would already be baked into the
`
`word “lumen.”
`
`Vascular Solutions points out that every mention of “lumen” in the patents “is in
`
`connection with it serving as a passageway for inter