BOSTON (LN) — U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted in part and denied in part Maquet’s motion for partial summary judgment, according to a May 1 memorandum order.
The court dismissed as moot Maquet’s motion regarding Abiomed’s defense that the term “intravascular blood pump comprising a cannula” in claim 3 lacked written description, having previously struck that theory as untimely.
The court denied Maquet’s motion as to Abiomed’s core invalidity theories: that the term “intravascular blood pump” in claims 1-3 and 24 is invalid for lack of written description and lack of enablement because the patent specification discloses only cable-driven pumps while claiming the full genus of intravascular blood pumps, including internally driven pumps.
The ‘783 patent, filed September 21, 2018, is a descendant of earlier patents disclosing guidance systems for intravascular blood pumps. The patent claims a pump system with four components: a rotor, a shroud, a cannula, and a guide mechanism. None of the asserted claims recites a drive mechanism.
Abiomed’s accused products—Impella devices—have an integrated internal motor, not an external motor with a cable drive. The specification describes only cable-driven embodiments.
Dr. Lakshmi Prasad Dasi, Abiomed’s expert, opined that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the drive cable was not some optional aspect of the named inventors’ device and that the invention concerned guide mechanisms specifically for cable-driven blood pumps, with the drive cable critical to the invention of the ‘783 patent.
Maquet’s expert Boris Leschinsky held a contrary view, but the court said it must examine the evidence most favorable to Abiomed as the nonmoving party.
“It is unclear to the Court whether the proper framework for considering the issue is the genus/species line of cases or the ICU Medical/LizardTech line of cases,” Saylor wrote. “A reasonable factfinder could conclude that the relevant ‘genus’ is ‘intravascular blood pumps’; that the relevant ‘species’ are cable-driven and internally powered pumps; and that the disclosure of the cable-driven species is not adequate to demonstrate that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed genus.”
The court said a reasonable trier of fact could find that Abiomed established by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1-3 and 24 are invalid because the specification discloses only cable-drive mechanisms.
The case is the second lawsuit between the parties. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc. et al, No. 17-12311-FDS, D. Mass.