Federal court says Cordis didn't infringe on Marctec patents

Twitter icon
Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
e-mail icon
Google icon

After a long standing court case, members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) have upheld a previous decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois that cleared Cordis of the prior claims put forth by Marctec that alleged the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary had infringed on two of Marctec owned U.S. Patents—the ‘753 patent and ‘290 patent.

Originally Marctec initiated the lawsuit in 2007 after alleging that the Cordis stents share similarities in stent assembly; however, the court ruled that the Marctec patents refer to surgical devices that relate to hip and knee anchors, not intraluminal coronary stents, like the Cypher stents.

Marctec claimed that the infringement was based on the term “bonding” and construed that Cordis bonded the polymers to the stents by heat. However, Cordis’ solution casting process is performed at room temperature, without heat. The court confirmed that the term “bonded” meant “bonded by the application of heat.”

While Marctec labeled the courts definition of bonded as superfluous, the court called Marctec’s case “baseless” and said that “the patents-in-suit are unrelated to stents.” The courts agreed with Cordis and named the case as exceptional, ruling in Cordis’ favor.

A response from the CAFC stated, “During prosecution of the patents, the applicants limited the claimed 'bonding' to heat bonding, in order to overcome the cited U.S. Patent 5,102,417.

“We affirm the district court’s construction that 'bonded' means bonded by the application of heat. Although Marctec argues that heat is applied, it did not present evidence to avoid the grant of summary judgment. The district court’s determination that no reasonable jury could find infringement is affirmed,” the CAFC concluded.

In February, the District Court in Illinois granted Cordis’ motion for summary of judgment of noninfringment and ruled that Cordis should be entitled to attorney fees and expenses that totaled nearly $4.7 million in expert and attorney fees.