United States Federal Circuit

In a patent case involving a hemodialysis machine integrated with a touch screen user interface, district court's ruling that plaintiffs infringed claims of three patents asserted by defendants is reversed as to its granting of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) where: 1) JMOL with respect to the issue of one patent claim was inappropriate as there was substantial evidence supporting the jury's implicit finding that the non-touch-screen limitations of the claim were in the prior art; 2) JMOL with respect to another claim was inappropriate because substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the limitations of element (a) of the claim were known in prior art; 3) JMOL was inappropriate as there is substantial evidence supporting the jury's implicit finding that the plurality of indicia limitation existed in the prior art with respect to claim 14; 4) substantial evidence supports the jury's implicit finding that claim 16 existed in the prior art; and 5) district court's grant of JMOL as to the asserted claims in the '131 patent was inappropriate under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), as there was substantial evidence to support the jury's implicit factual finding that the prior art suggested the combination of a touch screen user interface with known elements of prior art hemodialysis machines. District court's grant of Baxter's motion for JMOL is affirmed but on the ground that Frsenius failed to present any evidence that the structure corresponding to the means for delivering dialysate limitation existed in the prior art with respect to claims 26-31 of the '434 patent. Although the district court did not err in determining that permanent injunctive relief is appropriate, the injunction is vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of reversal of JMOL. The royalty award is vacated and remanded for the district court to consider whether the previous award is proper in light of the court's modification of the judgment. District court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a royalty on post-verdict sales of disposables kinked to machines that were sold pre-verdict in order to fully compensate Baxter.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/10/2009
• Published 09/10/2009

Judges

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel