Interventional Therapies v. Abbott Laboratories

Full title: INTERVENTIONAL THERAPIES, LLC and LASERSURGE, INC. Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: Aug 18, 2004

03-CV-6644(T) (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2004)

Opinion

03-CV-6644(T).

August 18, 2004

ORDER

MICHAEL TELESCA, Senior District Judge

Defendants Abbott Laboratories and Perclose, Inc. (collectively "defendants") move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) for a continuance of the disposition of plaintiffs Interventional Therapies, Inc.'s and Lasersuge, Inc.'s (collectively "plaintiffs") motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 23). Defendants claim that they are unable to adequately respond to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment because the parties have yet to take a single deposition or exchange a single document relating to the contested '592 Patent. Plaintiffs argue that a continuance is unnecessary because: (1) the parties have exchanged significant discovery in prior litigation before this Court; and (2) the adjudication of the claims at issue in plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment requires no discovery because plaintiffs limit the motion to literal construction.

"Throughout the construction process, it is important to bear in mind that the viewing glass through which the claims are construed is that of a person skilled in the art." Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Where the claims are of an especially technical nature, "consultation of extrinsic evidence is particularly appropriate to ensure that his or her understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is not entirely at variance with the understanding of one skilled in the art." Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Company, 183 F.3d 1298, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Here, the claims at issue describe a device-positioning method used to facilitate the stunting process when closing holes in the artery wall subsequent to surgery. As such, I find that the terms involved in construing the patent at issue are sufficiently technical so as to warrant a certain amount of extrinsic evidence in order to assist in the understanding of the underlying technology. Accordingly, defendants' Rule 56(f) Motion for a continuance is hereby granted, and plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is dismissed without prejudice.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.