Baxter International, Inc. v. CareFusion Corporation et al

Filing 432

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 2/14/2022. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment that the '805 patent is invalid for indefiniteness and lack of written description 346 is denied and Defendants' Motion to exclude certain opinions provided by Warren P. Heim 370 is granted in part and denied in part. Baxter's Motion for Summary Judgment of no invalidity 334 is granted. See Opinion for further details. Mailed notice(lk, )

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:23320

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
CAREFUSION CORPORATION, and
BECTON, DICKINSON AND
COMPANY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 15 C 9986
Judge Virginia M. Kendall

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Baxter International, Inc. sues Carefusion Corporation and Becton, Dickinson, and
Company alleging that Defendants’ product, the Alaris system, breaches various patents relating
to medical infusion pumps. Defendants move for summary judgment that one of the patents at
issue, U.S. patent number 5,782,805 (‘805 patent”), is invalid for indefiniteness and lack of written
description. (Dkt. 346). Defendants also move to exclude certain opinions provided by Baxter’s
technical expert, Warren P. Heim. (Dkt. 370). Baxter moves for partial summary judgment of no
invalidity by reason of anticipation or obviousness. (Dkt. 334). For the reasons that follow,
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity is denied, Defendants’ motion to exclude
Heim’s testimony is granted in part and denied in part, and Baxter’s motion for partial summary
judgment of no invalidity is granted.
BACKGROUND
I.

The ‘805 Patent’s Means-Plus Function Limitations
The ‘805 Patent discloses a medical infusion pump “having a main body portion” which

“includes a display area for displaying user interface information.” (Dkt. 405 at ¶ 6). The main
1

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:23321

body portion of the device contains a microprocessor “for generating user interface information
on the display areas.” (Id.) Claim 1 of the patent is the only remaining independent patent claim
at issue; the other asserted claims depend on claim 1 and include all of its limitations. (Id. at ¶ 7–
8). Claim 1 includes two means-plus-function limitations: (1) “microprocessor means contained
in the main body portion for generating user interface information on the display areas” and (2)
“means for generating a plurality of pictoral graphic representations as user interface information
on the main display.” (Id. at ¶¶ 10–11). Claim 3 includes the additional means-plus-function
limitation, “means responsive to the entered values for calculating a dose of the beneficial agent
to be infused into the patient.” (Id.) Accordingly the claimed functions for these limitations are
respectively, “generating user interface information on the display areas[,]” “generating a plurality
of pictoral graphic representations as user interface information on the main display[,]” and
“calculating a dose of the beneficial agent to be infused into the patient.” (Id. at ¶ 12). These
limitations are collectively referred to herein as the “means-plus-function limitations.”
Figure 7 of the ‘805 patent shown below, depicts “a user interface navigation flow
diagram” that serves as “an overview of the user interface routine” describe din the patent. (Dkt.
405 at ¶ 15) (Dkt. 348 Ex. 2 at 2:35–40).

2

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:23322

(Dkt. 405 at ¶ 14). The patent also illustrates several examples of display screens in accordance
with the principles of the invention. (Dkt. 348 Ex. 2 at Figures 8, 10–30).
A. Claim Construction
At claim construction, Defendants argued the ‘805 patent is invalid for indefiniteness
because the patent fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the functions associated with the
3

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:23323

means-plus-function limitations of the asserted claims. (Dkt. 157 at 9). In support of their
indefiniteness argument, Defendants submitted an expert declaration from Charles B. Kreitzberg
opining that “the ‘805 patent does not describe any step-by-step procedures to explain how the
pump’s microprocessor generates the information and images that appear on the device’s displays”
and similarly, fails to disclose an algorithm “for how a microprocessor would be programmed to
calculate a dose of the beneficial agent to be infused into the patient.” (Dkt. 158 at ¶¶ 21, 23).
Baxter presented expert testimony from Warren P. Heim, who opined that “[t]he ‘805 Patent uses
a flow chart, text, and many illustrations of user interface screens to describe to someone of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent algorithms to generate user interface information
on the main display.” (Dkt. 136-1 at ¶ 60). With respect to Figure 7, Heim opined:
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Figure 7 … as a flow
chart, or in other words, a graphical depiction of a computer algorithm. … Figure
7 and the associated description in the ‘805 Patent goes on to describe the choices
that the algorithm makes available to the user to display information and enter data.
… A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
recognized that Figure 7 defines how inputs at one element lead to the algorithm
moving to another element in the flow diagram. In other words, Figure 7 describes
to a person of ordinary skill in the art an algorithm that uses data input by users to
change the user interface information on the main display. Therefore, Figure 7
shows and example of an algorithm that informs a person of ordinary skill in the
art how to generate the user interface information shown on the main display.
(Id. at ¶¶ 62–65). Heim further opined in addition to Figure 7, the text of the specification and
the user interface output screens in the patent “provide very substantial details of the example
algorithm that describes how to generate user interface information to display.” (Id. at ¶ 69). Heim
walked through several examples of how the specification text and display screens inform the
algorithm a programmer would use to generate user interface on the main display. (Id.) Heim
reached similar conclusions with respect to the remaining means-plus-function limitations. (Id. at
¶¶ 95–138).

4

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:23324

Considering this evidence, in addition to the parties’ briefs, the Court concluded in an order
dated April 29, 2019, “that the algorithm at issue here has been presented in sufficiently
understandable terms such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what structure
corresponds to the limitation.” (Dkt. 191 at 7). Specifically, the Court observed:
The crux of the … microprocessor claims … is whether Figure 7 of the ‘805 Patent
discloses the algorithm necessary to perform the described function. … The flow
diagram in Figure 7 displays a step by step process of how the claimed function
operates. Carefusion demands more, but it is difficult to imagine precisely what
else could have been disclosed short of the actual computer code, which … is not
necessary.
(Id.) Defendants did not move for reconsideration of this decision prior to expert discovery.
B. Kirkpatrick’s Expert Report
Notwithstanding the Court’s claim construction order, Defendants’ technical expert, Greg
Kirkpatrick, issued an invalidity and unenforceability report opining that because the ‘805 patent
does not disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed functions of the means-plus-function
limitations, it is invalid for indefiniteness. (Dkt. 396 at ¶¶ 15–19). Kirkpatrick also opined that the
‘805 patent is invalid as anticipated and obvious by prior art. (Id. at ¶ 20). Regarding this latter
opinion, Kirkpatrick testified:
I compared what’s in the ‘805 patent with prior art. I compared what’s in the ‘805 patent
with the Alaris system. But again, since there’s no algorithm described in the ‘805 patent,
I cannot say that I have compared an algorithm from the ‘805, since it does not exist, with
prior art or with the Alaris system. … I did not perform an analysis on algorithms. As you
see in my report, there’s not an analysis of the algorithms of the prior art.
(Id. at ¶¶ 35–36).
C. Heim’s Expert Report
Baxter’s technical expert Warren P. Heim issued a rebuttal invalidity and enforceability
report in which he opines, consistent with his testimony at claim construction, that “a person of
ordinary skill in the art would bring to understanding the figures and the specification’s text to
5

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:23325

recognize that the ‘805 does present algorithms that could be implemented by a person of ordinary
skill in the art.” (Dkt. 412 at ¶ 2). Heim once again discusses Figure 7, the display screens, and
the specification text to support this opinion. (Dkt. 406 at ¶¶ 219–223).
Heim also issued an infringement report opining that the accused Alaris system infringes
the ‘805 patent. (Dkt. 405 at ¶ 24). Heim’s infringement report does not, however, directly
compare the user interface of the Alaris system to the navigation flow of Figure 7. (Id. at ¶ 26).
Instead, Heim testified that he “consider[ed] the specification of the ‘805 patent in its entirety,
including Figure 7[,]” described “the step-by-step procedures of the algorithms associated with the
claimed elements” of the patent, and then compared those algorithms to the algorithms disclosed
by the Alaris system. (Dkt. 348 Ex. 6 at 29–33). He testified that “[c]omparing the Alaris system
to the Figure 7 user interface navigation flow diagram wasn’t necessary because that user interface
navigation flow diagram is a high-level diagram.” (Id. at 37–38). Heim further testified:
Figure 7 wasn’t the proper way to evaluate whether generating user interface
information on the displays, and the subject of Claim 1 is generating user interface
information on the displays[.] I used the algorithms that I determined were in the
‘805 patent in the infringement report rather than Figure 7. So it was unnecessary
to include a description of Figure 7 in the infringement report because it did not
cover generating user interface information on the displays.
(Id. at 40). Heim’s invalidity and infringement opinions are offered “from the perspective of a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ‘805 Patent.” (Dkt. 350 at ¶
44) (Dkt. 406 at ¶ 44). His experience includes designing algorithms used to control medical
infusion pumps. (Id. at ¶¶ 38).
II.

The ‘805 Patent’s Configuration Parameters Limitation
In addition to the means-plus-function limitations, Claim 1 of the ‘805 patent contains a

“configuration parameters” limitation that reads: “a plurality of sets of configuration parameters
are included as user interface information such that a user can select which of the plurality of sets
6

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:23326

of configuration parameters to configure the infusion pump.” (Dkt. 348 Ex. 2 at 20:29–32). At
claim construction, Baxter proposed that “sets of configuration parameters” be construed to mean
a “collection of drugs’ parameters that determines the overall pump operating characteristics for a
given clinical context.” (Dkt. 191 at 11). The Court expressly rejected that construction because
it “adds terms and limitations not previously present in the Patent” and held that the limitation
required no construction because it is “comprised of commonly used terms[.]” (Id.) (internal
quotations omitted). Nonetheless, Heim testified during his deposition that the “configuration
parameters” limitation requires “configur[ing] the infusion pump to clinical areas.” (Dkt. 348 Ex.
6 at 117). Heim applied this “clinical areas” requirement to Claim 1 when reaching his validity,
enforceability, and infringement opinions. (See e.g., Dkt. 373 at ¶¶ 963, 1032) Dkt. 350 at ¶ 546).
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a); see, e.g., Reed v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hosp., 915 F.3d 473, 485 (7th Cir. 2019). The parties
genuinely dispute a material fact when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Daugherty v. Page, 906 F.3d 606, 609–10 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). In determining whether a genuine
issue of material fact exists, the Court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the party
opposing the motion. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Zander v. Orlich, 907 F.3d 956, 959 (7th Cir.
2018).
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits expert testimony only if: “(a) the expert’s scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony

7

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:23327

is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). In other words, it is this Court’s task to “ascertain whether the
expert is qualified, whether his or her methodology is scientifically reliable, and whether the
testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”
Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., 663 F.3d 887, 893 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted). The
expert's proponent bears the burden of demonstrating that the testimony would satisfy the Daubert
standard by a preponderance of the evidence. Gopalratnam v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 877 F.3d 771,
782 (7th Cir. 2017).
DISCUSSION
I.

Indefiniteness and Lack of Written Description
“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification

delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572
U.S. 898, 901 (2014). “A determination of claim indefiniteness is a legal conclusion that is drawn
from the court's performance of its duty as the construer of patent claims. Atmel Corp. v. Info.
Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quotations and citation omitted).
Means-plus function claim limitations “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure,
material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112. “To
determine whether a means-plus-function limitation is definite … a court identifies the particular
claimed function” and then, “looks to the specification and identifies the corresponding structure,
material, or acts that perform that function.” HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, 667 F.3d
1270, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In cases where the claim limitation is implemented using a

8

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:23328

microprocessor, as here, the specification must disclose the algorithm necessary to perform the
claimed function. Williamson v. Citrix-Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “The
algorithm may be expressed as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other
manner that provides sufficient structure.” Id. Because a patent is presumed valid, 35 U.S.C. §
282, “a challenge to a claim containing a means-plus-function limitation as lacking structural
support requires a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the specification lacks disclosure
of structure sufficient to be understood by one skilled in the art as being adequate to perform the
recited function.” Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

1

This Court already held during claim construction that the ‘805 patent discloses an
algorithm that “has been presented in sufficiently understandable terms such that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand what structure corresponds to the limitation.” (Dkt. 191
at 7). The Court found Figure 7 particularly compelling in reaching this conclusion, observing
that “[t]he flow diagram in Figure 7 displays a step by step process of how the claimed function
operates.” (Id.) Notwithstanding the Court’s order, Defendants continue to argue that the ‘805
patent is invalid because it fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed functions of
the means-plus-function limitations.

According to Defendants, Warren Heim’s expert

infringement report and deposition testimony “present[ ] changed circumstances from the
Markman proceedings” warranting reconsideration. (Dkt. 347 at 2); (see also Dkt. 411 at 3) (“It is
appropriate for the Court to revisit indefiniteness at the summary judgment stage where, as here,
the plaintiff’s infringement theories contradict its prior arguments to defeat indefiniteness.”).
“Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or

Defendants do not address invalidity for lack of written description independently from indefiniteness because they
maintain that if the patent claims are indefinite, they also lack adequate written description. (Dkt. 411 at 9–10). Thus,
the Court only addresses indefiniteness herein.

1

9

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:23329

to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc.,
90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (quotations and citation omitted). They are granted only in rare
circumstances and the party moving for reconsideration bears a heavy burden. See Bank of
Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990). A motion for
reconsideration is not a vehicle to relitigate arguments previously rejected by the Court. Id.
Although Heim opined during claim construction that Figure 7 presented an algorithm for
how to perform the steps of the means-plus-function limitations (Dkt. 136-1 at ¶¶ 62–65), Heim’s
infringement report does not directly compare the user interface of the Alaris system to the
navigation flow of Figure 7. (Dkt. 405 at ¶ 26). Heim testified:
Because Figure 7 wasn’t the proper way to evaluate whether generating user
interface information on the displays, and the subject of Claim 1 is generating user
interface information on the displays, I used the algorithms that I determined were
in the ‘805 patent in the infringement report rather than Figure 7. So it was
unnecessary to include a description of Figure 7 in the infringement report because
it did not cover generating user interface information on the displays.
(Dkt. 348 Ex. 6 at 40). Rather, Heim maintained that he “consider[ed] the specification of the ‘805
patent in its entirety, including Figure 7” to derive the algorithms he uses in his infringement report.
(Id. at 29). It is apparent from his infringement report that Heim primarily used the example
display screens from the ‘805 patent and specification text describing those figures to derive the
algorithms he uses for his infringement analysis; the report does not contain a detailed discussion
of Figure 7. (See generally Dkt. 350 at ¶¶ 464–612).
Defendants argue Heim’s deposition testimony and decision to not use Figure 7 itself as an
algorithm undermine the Court’s conclusion that that Figure 7 discloses an algorithm to perform
the steps of the means-plus-function limitations. At most, however, Heim’s deposition testimony
that Figure 7 “d[oes] not cover generating use interface information on the displays” creates an
issue of credibility that the Court must weigh along with Heim’s other testimony. Bank of Illinois
10

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:23330

v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d 1162, 1170 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Variations in a witness's
testimony … create an issue of credibility as to which part of the testimony should be given the
greatest weight if credited at all. Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses … are questions of
fact which require resolution by the trier of fact.”). When viewed in light of the full scope of
Heim’s claim construction testimony, the entirety of his deposition testimony, along with Heim’s
rebuttal invalidity report, the weight of Heim’s testimony continues to support this Court’s
determination that the ‘805 patent adequately discloses an algorithm.
To begin, the scope of Heim’s testimony during claim construction regarding algorithms
disclosed by the ‘805 patent extended beyond Figure 7. Heim opined that “[t]he ‘805 Patent uses
a flow chart [Figure 7], text, and many illustrations of user interface screens to describe to someone
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent algorithms to generate user interface information
on the main display.” (Dkt. 136-1 at ¶ 60) (emphasis added). After explaining in detail how Figure
7 discloses an algorithm, Heim states that “[i]n addition to Figure 7 itself, the text of the
specification for the ‘805 patent[,]” along with various examples of user output display screens
“describe[ ] and provide[ ] further details of the algorithm illustrated in Figure 7.” (Id. at ¶¶ 64,
66). He goes onto explain how the specification text and display images “provide very substantial
details of the example algorithm that describes how to generate user interface information to
display.” (Id. at ¶ 69). Heim reaches similar conclusions with respect to each means-plus-function
limitation. (Id. at ¶¶ 95–138). Heim’s decision to “consider the specification of the ‘805 patent in
its entirety, including Figure 7” to derive the algorithms he uses for his infringement analysis is
thus consistent with his claim construction testimony. (Dkt. 348 Ex. 6 at 29). Heim’s rebuttal
invalidity report, issued more than a year after claim construction, also reiterates Heim’s opinion
during claim construction that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would bring to understanding

11

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:23331

the figures and the specification’s text to recognize that the ‘805 does present algorithms that could
be implemented by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” (Dkt. 412 at ¶ 2). Heim once again
explains how Figure 7, along with the display screens and specification text to support this opinion.
(See Dkt. 406 at ¶¶ 219–223).
When considered alone, Heim’s subsequent deposition testimony that he “used the
algorithms that [he] determined were in the ‘805 patent in the infringement report rather than
Figure 7” because Figure 7 “did not cover generating user interface information on the displays”
seemingly contradicts his prior testimony. (Dkt. 348 Ex. 6 at 40). Considered in context, however,
the contradiction is less apparent. At Heim’s deposition, defense counsel extensively questioned
Heim about the treatment of Figure 7, or lack thereof, in his infringement report. (Id. at 29–40).
Heim repeatedly stated that while he considered Figure 7 along with the entire specification to
derive the algorithms he used for his infringement analysis, he did not use Figure 7 alone to
determine the details of the algorithms or compare it to the Alaris system because it was just a
“high-level diagram.” (Id. at 33) (“Figure 7, being a user interface navigation flow diagram, is at
a high level. And to have the step-by-step procedures of the algorithms, I looked at the detail of
the ‘805 patent.”); (id. at 35) (“Figure 7 is the user interface navigation flow diagram. And it’s the
high level. … And I describe those step-by-step procedures of the algorithms in my report, based
on Figure 7 and the rest of the specification of the ‘805 patent, so it wasn’t necessary to compare
the Alaris system to Figure 7.”); (id. at 36) (“[I]t wasn’t necessary to compare the Alaris system to
the high-level navigation flow diagram of Figure 7, because that is a high-level diagram.”). Heim
also reiterated: “The ‘805 patent discloses an algorithm, and one part of what it discloses is Figure
7 as a user interface navigation flow diagram.” (Id. at 37). Thus, as a whole, Heim’s testimony
indicates that while he considered Figure 7 in his analysis, he did not use it alone as a source for a

12

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:23332

detailed algorithmic comparison because it describes a high-level algorithm. This testimony is
once again consistent with Heim’s claim construction testimony that Figure 7 discloses an
algorithm, the details of which are provided by the specification text and example display images
within the patent. (Dkt. 136-1 at ¶¶ 64, 66).
Defendants place great emphasis on dicta in the Court’s claim construction order stating
that “[t]he crux of the … microprocessor claims … is whether Figure 7 of the ‘805 Patent discloses
the algorithm necessary to perform the described function.” (Dkt. 191 at 7). Defendants misread
this statement to mean that the Court found that Figure 7 alone discloses the relevant algorithm.
To the contrary, the Court understood that from the perspective of Heim as a person of ordinary
skill in the art (“POSA”), Figure 7, along with other parts of the patent disclosed the relevant
algorithm. “The understanding of one of skilled in the art[,] [however,] does not relieve the
patentee of the duty to disclose sufficient structure to support means-plus-function claim terms.”
Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 543 F.3d 710, 719 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “It is not enough for the
patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what
structures to use to accomplish the claimed function. … The inquiry is whether one of skill in the
art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person
would be capable of implementing that structure.” Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l
Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Thus, while both the input and output of an algorithm inform that algorithm, the Court
appropriately focused its inquiry on Figure 7 and its associated specification text which “defines
how inputs at one element lead to the algorithm moving to another element in the flow diagram[,]”
rather than the “examples of user interface output screens.” (Dkt. at ¶¶ 65). The Court credited
Heim’s opinion that these display screens and the specification text associated with them “provide

13

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:23333

very substantial details of the … algorithm” at issue, however, the appropriate inquiry was not
whether a POSA would be able to look at these screens and their associated specification text and
work backwards to derive the algorithms, but whether the patent itself describes some portion of
that algorithm. The Court concluded, as did Heim, that Figure 7 does just that: “The flow diagram
in Figure 7 displays a step by step process of how the claimed function operates.” (Dkt. 191 at 7).
While it does not specify exactly how each input element of the algorithm is generated, it
“present[s] a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention an understanding of
how to set up the software that generates the information on the displays so that the user of the
pump could navigate through the user interface displays and routines.” (Id. at ¶ 63). That is all
that is required in light of the demanding clear and convincing evidentiary standard. See e.g.,
Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (A patent need only
disclose “to the satisfaction of one of ordinary skill in the art, enough of an algorithm to provide
the necessary structure….”); Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d at 1338 (A patentee is “not required to
produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the algorithm to be used to
achieve the claimed function.”). Thus, the Court held that Figure 7 discloses enough of an
algorithm to satisfy the requirements of § 112, not that it alone disclosed the relevant algorithm.
Finally, Defendants’ affirmative evidence and arguments in support of invalidity also
remain the same as those presented and already considered by the Court during claim construction.
See Dkt. 404 at 12–13). During claim construction, Defendants offered the expert testimony of
Charles B. Kreitzberg who opined that “the ‘805 patent does not describe any step-by-step
procedures to explain how the pump’s microprocessor generates the information and images that
appear on the device’s displays” and similarly, fails to disclose an algorithm “for how a
microprocessor would be programmed to calculate a dose of the beneficial agent to be infused into

14

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:23334

the patient.” (Dkt. 158 at ¶¶ 21, 23). This testimony is substantially similar to that now offered by
Defendants’ invalidity expert Gregg Kirkpatrick that “there are no steps-by-step procedures
described in the ‘805 patent to disclose how the pump’s microprocessors generate the information
and images that appear on the device’s displays, or how the processors calculate the drug dose to
be administered to a patient.” (Dkt. 405 at ¶ 55). Kirkpatrick’s testimony, like Kreitzberg’s,
presents a competing opinion to Heim’s regarding indefiniteness, which the Court has already
resolved in Baxter’s favor in light of the demanding clear and convincing evidence standard for
invalidity. (See Dkt. 191 at 6–7).
Heim’s testimony during claim construction regarding the algorithms disclosed by the ‘805
patent remains largely consistent with his subsequent testimony and expert reports. Defendants
further fail to offer new affirmative evidence or argument in support of their invalidity position.
In short, the facts, evidence, and argument have not substantially changed since this Court
considered Defendants’ indefiniteness challenge more than two years ago.

Consequently,

Defendants fail to meet their heavy burden to show that reconsideration is warranted and the Court
stands by its previous conclusion that “the algorithm at issue here has been presented in sufficiently
understandable terms such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what structure
corresponds to the limitation.” (Id. at 7). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity
by reasons of indefiniteness and lack of written description is denied.
II.

Heim’s Expert Report
In his infringement report, Heim compared the algorithms disclosed by the ‘805 patent

with those disclosed by the accused Alaris system and concluded that the Alaris system infringes
the means-plus-function limitations of patent. (Dkt. 350 at ¶¶ 464–612).

Heim also applied a

“clinical areas” requirement to the “configuration parameters” limitation of Claim 1 when reaching

15

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:23335

his validity, enforceability, and infringement opinions. (See e.g., Dkt. 373 at ¶¶ 963, 1032) Dkt.
350 at ¶ 546). Defendants move to strike these opinions, arguing Heim disregarded the Court’s
claim construction holdings. “Expert opinions that conflict with a court's established claim
construction tend only to create confusion and are thus unhelpful to the jury.” Callpod, Inc. v. GN
Netcom, Inc., 703 F. Supp. 2d 815, 822 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (citing CytoLogix Corp. v. Ventana Med.
Sys., Inc., 424 F.3d 1168, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “[A] court should discount any expert testimony
that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves….” Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Similarly, experts may not usurp the Court’s role by opining as to claim construction. See Cordin
Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]he risk of confusing the
jury is high when experts opine on claim construction.”).
A. Means-Plus-Function Limitations
Defendants argue Heim’s failure to analyze the navigation flow of Figure 7 to derive the
algorithms he used for his infringement analysis is contrary to the Court’s claim construction
finding that “[t]he flow diagram in Figure 7 displays a step by step process of how the claimed
function operates.” (Dkt. 191 at 7). Heim’s report does not include a detailed discussion of Figure
7. Rather, Heim primarily relied on the example display screens and their specification text to
derive the algorithms he uses for his analysis. (See generally Dkt. 350 at ¶¶ 464–612). As
discussed above, however, the Court did not hold that Figure 7 alone discloses the relevant
algorithm. Rather, the Court understood from Heim’s claim construction testimony that Figure 7
discloses an overview of an algorithm, the details of which are provided by the specification text
and example display screens. Heim’s heavy reliance on the specification text and display screens
to derive the algorithms used for his infringement analysis is thus entirely consistent with the

16

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:23336

Court’s claim construction order. Moreover, Heim did not disregard Figure 7. Heim repeatedly
testified at his deposition that he “consider[ed] the specification of the ‘805 patent in its entirety,
including Figure 7” to derive the algorithms he uses in his infringement report, but did not perform
a direct comparison between Figure 7 and the Alaris system because Figure 7 is only a “high level
diagram.” (Dkt. 348 Ex. 6 at 29–36). It is reasonable, for the purposes of his infringement analysis,
for Heim to have relied on the high-level algorithm of Figure 7 and use the example display screens
and their specification text to fill in the details of that algorithm.
Defendants maintain that allowing Heim to testify to the algorithms he found in the patent
amounts to impermissible claim construction because the Court already identified the relevant
algorithm as Figure 7. Heim, however, derived more detailed versions of that algorithm using the
specification text and display images from the patent. While Heim could have chosen to use Figure
7 as the algorithm for his infringement analysis, his decision to use more detailed algorithms is
indicative of how Heim thought it best to apply the Court’s claim construction to the facts of the
case, rather than an attempt at claim construction itself. See e.g., Not Dead Yet Mfg., Inc. v. Pride
Sols., LLC, 222 F. Supp. 3d 657, 668 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (permitting expert testimony that was “a
good-faith attempt to apply the court’s construction of claim terms” and “not an attempt to offer
his own constructions.”). Notably, Defendants nor their technical expert argue that the algorithms
Heim used are inconsistent with any algorithm disclosed by Figure 7. Rather, Defendants and
their expert continue to maintain, contrary to the Court’s claim construction order, that the ‘805
patent does not disclose an algorithm at all.
Similarly, Defendants maintain Heim’s algorithms are “invented” by Heim and are not
found within the patent. Heim reviewed the patent from the perspective of a POSA and detailed
the algorithms he understood the patent to disclose. (Dkt. 350 at ¶ 44). Heim identifies the exact

17

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:23337

text and/or figures he relied on to generate each algorithm in his infringement report. (Id. at ¶¶
464–612). Thus, although the verbatim text of the algorithms is not recited in the patent, the
information Heim relied on as a POSA to derive those algorithms is found within the patent.
Next, Defendants argue Heim’s algorithms themselves do not constitute algorithms
because they use purely functional language and do not describe how a processor is programmed
to perform the claimed functions. Heim’s algorithms, however, do more than “simply describe[ ]
the function to be performed” by the processor. Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d at 1334. They describe
the steps a programmer needs to implement to perform the claimed function. For example, Heim
describes the following algorithm for generating user interface information on the piggyback
infusion programming screen:
Table 7
Algorithm for Generating User Interface Information on Piggyback Infusion Programming
Screen As Disclosed in the '805 Patent
Algorithm Step
PB01: [Set title line]
Set title text to be "Piggyback Rate-Volume" and specify location coordinates
PB02: [Set title icon]
Set title icon to be Piggyback icon and specify location coordinates
PB03: [Set up parameter inputs]
PB03.1: [Set up Rate input]
PB03.1: [Set label for Rate input]
Set first line left text field to be "Rate" and specify location coordinates
PB03.1: [Set units field for Rate]
Set first line right text field to be "mL/hr" and specify location coordinates
PB03.2: [Set up Volume to be Infused input]
PB03.2.1: [Set label for Volume to be Infused input]
Set second line left text field to be "Volume to be Infused" and specify location coordinates
PB03.2.2: [Set units field for Volume to be Infused]
Set second line right text field to be "mL" and specify location coordinates
PB04: [Set message text based on operating state of pump]
Set message text to be "Primary Rate will be run at 125 ml/hr when the piggyback is
complete"
PB05: [Set prompt text based on programming state]
Set prompt text to be "ENTER THE VOLUME OR PRESS START" (START is a hard key on
the front panel)
PB06: [Set soft key labels]
18

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:23338

Set first soft key label to be "CHANGE
MODE" Set fourth soft key label to be
"PRIMARY"
PB07: [Output to display]
Send to display memory the title text, the title icon, text fields, message text, prompt text,
soft key labels.
(Dkt. 350 at ¶ 484). Each of these steps tells the programmer what inputs to enter to generate each
desired output. Heim also explains how this method of describing an algorithm comports with
scholarly practice in the field. (Id. at ¶¶ 464–69) (citing “The Art of Computer Programming,
Volume 1: Fundamental Algorithms[,]” by Donald Knuth and noting that the notation style for
presenting algorithms “breaks each step of an algorithm into a written description that clarifies
whether the step is an input, a type of processing step, or an output.”). Defendants are free to
attach the sufficiency of Heim’s algorithms through rebuttal expert testimony and cross
examination.
Finally, Defendants take issue with the scope of Heim’s analysis. Defendants fault Heim
for neglecting to analyze every example display screen describing the subroutines of Figure 7 and,
for the screens Heim did analyze, failing to analyze every feature disclosed by the screen. These
objections, however, go to the weight the jury should give Heim’s testimony rather than its
admissibility. Defendants’ motion to exclude Heim’s infringement opinions regarding the meansplus-function limitations is denied.
B. Configuration Parameters Limitation
Claim 1 of the ‘805 patent includes a “configurations parameters” limitation: “a plurality
of sets of configuration parameters are included as user interface information such that a user can
select which of the plurality of sets of configuration parameters to configure the infusion pump.”
(Dkt. 348 Ex. 2 at 20:29–32). At claim construction, Baxter argued that “sets of configuration

19

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:23339

parameters” should be construed to mean a “collection of drugs’ parameters that determines the
overall pump operating characteristics for a given clinical context.” (Dkt. 191 at 11). The Court
rejected this construction and opted instead to give the limitation its plain and ordinary meaning:
Baxter’s proposed construction does more to advocate its case than provide
clarification to the jury. Baxter’s construction would have the Court read in
limitations not present in the ‘805 Patent. … Here, the claim is comprised of
commonly used terms; each used in common parlance and has no special meaning
in the art. The contested claim requires no further construction and the terms will
be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
(Id.) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Notwithstanding this conclusion, in reaching his validity, enforceability, and infringement
opinions, Heim reads a “clinical context” requirement into the “configuration parameters”
limitation of Claim 1. For example, in his rebuttal invalidity report, when attempting to distinguish
the prior art Eggers patent, Heim asserts that “the Eggers patent does not describe sets of
configuration parameters that configure the infusion pump to clinical areas, as required to meet
this claim limitation of the ‘805 Patent Claim 1.” (Dkt. 406 at ¶ 963) (emphasis added). He also
opines that Defendants’ expert, Kirkpatrick, does not sufficiently describe how a particular
obviousness combination describes ‘“a plurality of sets of configuration parameters’ such that the
configuration parameters have the meaning meant in the ‘805 Patent where the set of configuration
parameters customize the infusion pump to a specific clinical area, such as a in a hospital.” (Id.
at ¶ 1032) (emphasis added). Similarly, in his infringement report Heim opines that Claim 1
requires “algorithms for selecting from a plurality of sets of configuration parameters … in which
each Hospital Area will have its own set of configuration parameters.” (Dkt. 350 at ¶ 546)

20

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:23340

(emphasis added). At his deposition, Heim confirmed his view that the “configuration parameters”
limitation requires “configur[ing] the infusion pump to clinical areas.” (Dkt. 348 Ex. 6 at 117).
Heim’s inclusion of a “clinical context” requirement within the “configuration parameters”
limitation of Claim 1 is contrary to this Court’s order explicitly rejecting that construction and
amounts to impermissibly arguing claim construction. Baxter argues that the “plain and ordinary”
meaning of a term is its meaning to a POSA, see Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005), and Heim, as a POSA, testified that the “plain and ordinary” meaning of “configuration
parameters” is “to facilitate usage in the selected clinical application” or to “configure the pump
to clinical areas.” (Dkt. 348 Ex. 6 at 116–18). The Court’s “plain and ordinary” meaning
construction, however, is not an invitation for Baxter to argue a construction of that term that the
Court explicitly rejected. See e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (district court did not err in excluding expert testimony arguing for a limitation
specifically rejected by the court when it construed the term as having its “plain and ordinary
meaning.”). Accordingly, the portions of Heim’s report discussing the “configuration parameters”
limitation as including a “clinical context” or a “hospital area” requirement are excluded.
III.

Anticipation & Obviousness
Finally, Baxter moves for partial summary judgment of no invalidity due to anticipation or

obviousness, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–03. For a claim to be anticipated under § 102, “each claim element
must be disclosed either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art references, and the claimed
arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or
inherently, in that same prior art reference.” Therasence, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d
1325, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Similarly, “obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations
in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003). As with

21

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:23341

indefiniteness, invalidity due to anticipation or obviousness must be proven by clear and
convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 97 (2011); see also Sciele
Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., 684 F.3d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
“[A] challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was
present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present
in the prior art.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
The corresponding structure in the context of a means-plus-function term is the algorithm disclosed
by the patent. Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d at 1333. Baxter’s technical expert, Gregg Kirkpatrick,
opines that to the extent the asserted claims of the ‘805 patent are not indefinite, they are invalid
as anticipated and obvious in light of various prior art references and combinations thereof. (Dkt.
at ¶ 113). There is no dispute, however, that Kirkpatrick failed to perform an algorithm-based
comparison of the ‘805 patent and asserted prior art references. Rather, Kirkpatrick opined that
the ‘805 patent fails to disclose any algorithm and testified:
I compared what’s in the ‘805 patent with prior art. I compared what’s in the ‘805
patent with the Alaris system. But again, since there’s no algorithm described in
the ‘805 patent, I cannot say that I have compared an algorithm from the ‘805, since
it does not exist, with prior art or with the Alaris system. … I did not perform an
analysis of algorithms. As you see in my report, there’s not an analysis of the
algorithms of the prior art.
(Dkt. 396 at ¶¶ 35–36).
Defendants argue Kirkpatrick’s failure to conduct an algorithm-based comparison is
excused by his reliance on Baxter’s Amended Final Infringement Contentions:
Kirkpatrick analyzed Baxter’s Amended Final Infringement Contentions to
understand the alleged scope of the asserted claims, and then compared each piece
of prior art to the different claim limitations, on an element-by-element basis. As
Kirkpatrick’s invalidity report shows, the prior art discloses structures that meet
every claim limitation under Baxter’s interpretation, including the “microprocessor

22

Case: 1:15-cv-09986 Document #: 432 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:23342

means” limitation. This is sufficient evidence to demonstrates there is a genuine
issue of material fact as to anticipation and obviousness.
(Dkt. 395 at 10). That is, however, not the law. To prove that a means-plus-function limitation is
anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, Defendants must show that the corresponding
structure, here the algorithm disclosed in the ‘805 patent, is present within the prior art. Fresenius,
582 F.3d at 1299.

2

Defendants’ invalidity expert fails to conduct that analysis. Consequently,

there is no factual basis from which a reasonable trier of fact could find clear and convincing
evidence of anticipation or obviousness. Baxter’s motion for partial summary judgment of
invalidity by reason of anticipation or obviousness is granted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment that the ‘805 patent
is invalid for indefiniteness and lack of written description [346] is denied and Defendants’ motion
to exclude certain opinions provided by Warren P. Heim [370] is granted in part and denied in
part. Baxter’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity [334] is granted.

Date: February 14, 2022

____________________________________
Virginia M. Kendall
United States District Judge

Defendants dispute the applicability of Fresnius, arguing that it “dealt with the odd procedural posture that the district
court had construed some [but not all,] of the means-plus-function limitations at issue,” whereas here, “the Court did
identify the claimed algorithm structure” at claim construction. (Dkt. 396 at 14). This distinction is irrelevant, however,
because there is no dispute that Defendants’ expert did not compare the algorithm identified by the Court to the prior
art.

2

23