IP Matters Involving Surgical Devices and ADHD Treatment Method

By FindLaw Staff on April 26, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Medtronic Navigation, Inc. v. Brainlab Medizinische Computersysteme GMBH, No. 09-1058, involved an appeal by plaintiff and counsel in a patent infringement action concerning defendant's accused devices, which are image-guided surgical navigation devices that use an array of cameras to detect the position of surgical instruments through triangulation, as well as three other patents.  In reversing an order awarding attorney fees, costs, expenses, and interest in an amount over $4 million in favor of the defendants, the court held that the district court committed clear error in finding this case to be exceptional under section 285.  Furthermore, plaintiff's counsel's use of the FDA submission evidence was not sufficiently egregious to justify the imposition of sanctions under the court's inherent authority.

ALZA Corp. v. ANDRX Pharm., LLC., No. 09-1350, involved a challenge to the district court's finding of noninfringement in plaintiff's patent infringement suit, involving methods for treating ADHD through a methylphenidate drug dosage that has an ascending releas rate over an extended period of time.  The court affirmed the decision as the asserted claims are invalid for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. section 112. 

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard