A long, ongoing patent infringement case has had some resolution, with a decision that has has some import for patent law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard appeals in the case involving Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., and Guidant Sales Corp. versus St. Jude Medical Inc.

In part of the decision, the case was remanded back to district court in order for damages to be awarded to Guidant and Cardiac Pacemakers. Cardiac, based in St. Paul, MN, brought the original suit back in 1996. The suit claimed St. Jude was selling implantable cardioverter defibrillators that infringed various patents belonging to Cardiac. While in the original trial the jury found for Cardiac, subsequent decisions overturned the verdict.

At the trial level, the original jury found one of Cardiac's patents to be valid and enforceable, but not infringed by St. Jude's ICDs. In the current holding, the Court of Appeals reinstated the jury's verdict of enforceability of the patent in question, as well as referring to the Court's earlier decision (vacating the original jury verdict) that the patent had in fact been possibly infringed upon. The remand to the district court was for determination of damages for that patent claim.

The Court of Appeals heard other arguments raised on the issues, including whether a federal patent infringement law, 35 U.S.C. 271(f), (which imposes patent infringement liability on those who export components that are assembled abroad) applied to method patent claims or only to apparatuses. The court reversed a previous decision and held that Section 271(f) does not cover method claims. The language of the complete statute, the court said, "makes it clear that it does not extend to method patents. We also cannot ignore the context of the statute and its legislative history, which lead us to the same conclusion, which is that Section 271(f) does not encompass method patents." This decision overturns a holding from an earlier case in 2005. In terms of business impact, this current decision will limit the export damages in any claims based solely upon method.

Adapted from information from public court documents.
Read more at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1296.pdf

More Industry Headlines