United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND/OR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Dennis Saylor, IV United States District Judge.
an action for patent infringement. Defendant Maquet
Cardiovascular, LLC owns six patents directed to guidable
intravascular blood pumps and related methods. Plaintiff
Abiomed, Inc. filed this action seeking declaratory judgment
that it does not infringe those patents and that they are
parties submitted proposed claim constructions of eighteen
terms or groups of terms. After a Markman hearing,
the Court issued its claim-construction opinion on September
has filed a motion seeking reconsideration and/or
clarification of one of the 18 disputed claim term groups.
Specifically, Maquet seeks to have the Court revisit its
construction of the “passing purge fluid” terms,
which is set forth at pages 56 to 59 of the
construing the “passing purge fluid” terms, the
Court examined Maquet's statement during the '728
patent's IPR that “running purge fluid through . .
. bearings and into the bloodstream . . . is a bad
idea.” (Mem. & Ord. at 57). That statement, the
court wrote, “clearly and unmistakably disparaged
one-way systems in which the purge fluid runs both (1)
through bearing assemblies and (2) into the blood
stream.” (Id.). Thus, the Court concluded, the
IPR statement “directly contradict[ed] statements in
the specification that clearly contemplate passing purge
fluid through ball bearing assemblies and into the
bloodstream.” (Id.). “[F]aced with a
direct contradiction between the specification” and the
“disclaimer in the IPR, ” the Court decided that
Abiomed's narrower construction of the “passing
purge fluid” terms controlled. (Id. at 59).
seeking reconsideration of the Court's construction,
Maquet contends that Abiomed failed to present the entirety
of the section of the IPR brief from which its relevant
statement was taken. Had the entire section been presented,
Maquet contends, its IPR statement would have clearly been
understood to have only been speaking about Abiomed's
specific “imaginary” version of a prior reference
called Aboul-Hosn, and not generally about systems that
contemplate passing purge fluid through any part of any
bearing assemblies. (Def. Mem. at 12).
Maquet contends that Abiomed interpreted Aboul-Hosn as
describing a system in which purge fluid is passed through a
gap between a shaft and the inner surfaces of bearings and a
magnetic rotor. (Id.). It contends that its
invention, as described in the specification, “pass[es]
purge fluid through bearing assemblies designed to receive
purge fluid.” (Id. at 15). Accordingly, Maquet
contends, its system and Abiomed's
“imaginary” system are “very different,
” and thus its IPR statement “should not be
expanded” to be understood as a disparagement of the
systems described by its patents. (Id.).
following reasons, the motion for reconsideration will be
facts underlying the Court's claim-construction opinion
are set out at length in its Memorandum and Order of
September 7, 2018. Familiarity with that opinion is assumed.
Some of the background facts relevant to the present motion
are repeated below.
Abiomed, Inc. is a manufacturer of the “Impella”
line of intravascular blood pumps, which it has been
marketing since June 2008.
Maquet Cardiovascular LLC is the owner of several patents
directed to intravascular blood pumps, including the six at
issue in this case.