Composite Resources Inc v. Recon Medical LLC

Filing 124

ORDER that CRI's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 109 ) is granted. The part of the claim construction order (ECF No. 103 ) finding the phrase "body part" is a claim limitation is vacated. The Court finds that the phrase "body part" in the preambles of the asserted patents is not a limitation or element of the asserted claims. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/22/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

COMPOSITE RESOURCES, INC.,

Case No. 2:17-cv-01755-MMD-VCF

Plaintiff,

7
v.

ORDER

8
RECON MEDICAL, LLC,
9
Defendant.
10
11

The Court is persuaded it clearly erred in finding that “body part” is a limitation or

12

element of the asserted claims, and will grant Plaintiff Composite Resources, Inc.’s

13

(“CRI”) motion for reconsideration currently before the Court.1 (ECF No. 109.) As used

14

in the preambles of the asserted patents, “body part” is not a limitation or element of the

15

asserted claims. This litigation will proceed accordingly.

16

I.

BACKGROUND

17

Defendant Recon Medical, LLC (“Recon”) offers for sale certain tourniquets that

18

CRI alleges infringe its patents, which are entitled “Tourniquet and Method of Use” (U.S.

19

Patent Nos. 7,842,067 (“the ’067 patent”), 7,892,253 (“the ’253 patent”), and 8,888,807

20

(“the ’807 patent”)). (Id.) CRI alleges that Recon has infringed: claims 1 through 11 and

21

15 through 17 of the ’067 patent (ECF No. 69 at 5); claims 1 through 5 and 8 through 11

22

of the ’253 patent (id. at 10); and claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 through 20, and 22 through 30 of

23

the ’807 patent (id. at 14). The patents cover both a tourniquet and a method for

24

restricting the flow of blood in a body part.

25

In the claim construction order (ECF No. 103), the Court in relevant part found

26

that “body part” was a claim limitation. (Id. at 11.) CRI challenges that finding in its

27
28

1The

Court also reviewed Recon’s response (ECF No. 120), and CRI’s reply
(ECF No. 121).

1

motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Court’s findings regarding the construction

2

of “body part” were correct, but the Court clearly erred when it concluded that “body

3

part” is a claim limitation. (ECF No. 109 at 4.) Recon argues in response that the Court’s

4

conclusion that “body part” is a claim limitation was correct and should not be disturbed.

5

(ECF No. 120 at 2.)

6

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

7

A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should

8

reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

9

persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp.

10

2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court: “(1) is

11

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

12

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling

13

law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

14

III.

DISCUSSION

15

The Court is persuaded by CRI’s argument that the Court clearly erred when it

16

concluded that “body part” is a claim limitation. Upon reconsideration, the Court agrees

17

with CRI that its reasoning supports the opposite conclusion—that “body part” is not a

18

claim limitation or an element of the asserted claims and will grant reconsideration.

19

“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.”

20

Bells Commc’ns Research Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir.

21

1995). “If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites

22

limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and

23

vitality to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of

24

the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir.

25

1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, if “the body of the claims fully and

26

intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the

27

preamble offers no distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but

28

2

1

rather merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the

2

preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to

3

constitute or explain a claim limitation.” Id. (citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed.

4

Cir. 1997)).

5

Here, the preamble does not present any distinct definition of “body part” and is

6

of no import to construction of this term. By way of example, representative claim 7 of

7

the ’067 patent states:
A tourniquet for restricting a flow of blood in a body part, the tourniquet
comprising:
…
(b) a second elongated member, wherein prior to contacting the first
elongated member to the body part, at least a portion of the second
elongated member is anchored to a first end of the first elongated member
and at least partially contained within the first elongated member, the
second elongated member configured to slidably engage at least a portion
of the first elongated member;
…
(d) a buckle connected to the first elongated member and the second
elongated member, wherein a gap is located between portions of the
second elongated member at the buckle when applied to the body part

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Wherein a radial compressive force is applied to the body part upon
applying a tensile force to the second elongated member by rotating the
windlass and twisting the portion of the second elongated member,
wherein the radial compressive force restricts the flow of blood in the body
part, and wherein an overlapped portion of the second elongated member
between a tip of the first elongated member and the buckle when applied
to the body part tends to not slip within the first elongated member when
the tensile force is applied to the second elongated member.

15
16
17
18
19
20

(ECF No. 1-1 at 16 (emphasis added).) The Court re-affirms its finding that the body of

21

the claims, such as claim 7 of the ’067 patent above, “fully and intrinsically” sets forth

22

the entire invention such that the preamble’s use of “body part” is of no significance to

23

the term’s construction. And the Court now clarifies it agrees with CRI that “body part” is

24

not a claim limitation.

25

IV.

CONCLUSION

26

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several

27

cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and

28

3

1

determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of

2

CRI’s motion for reconsideration.

3

It is therefore ordered that CRI’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 109) is

4

granted. The part of the claim construction order (ECF No. 103) finding the phrase

5

“body part” is a claim limitation is vacated. The Court finds that the phrase “body part” in

6

the preambles of the asserted patents is not a limitation or element of the asserted

7

claims.

8
9

DATED THIS 22nd day of October 2018.

10
11
12

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4