Intellectual Property Law

?You Assert That a ?Spike? is a Non-Pointed Structure Under This Patent? That Will Cost You $4.6 Million, Counselor!?

By Lee.Gesmer

As I’ve said so many times in this blog, it’s not the law you need to fear, it’s the judge.

In CU Medical v. Alaris Medical System (a patent infringement case involving which medical valves) the California U.S. District Court trial judge didn’t like that the patent holder argued that the term “spike,” described in the patent  as “a pointed instrument,” included non-pointed structures, such as a tube. The trial court also found that the plaintiff made “multiple, repeated misrepresentations . . . to the Court,” another no-no with many judges.

The trial court imposed sanctions totalling $4.4 million under 35 U.S.C. Section 285 (”The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party”) as well as  Rule 11 sanctions for good measure.

The CAFC affirmed. Here is a link to the case: CU Medical v. Alaris Medical System

Full post as published by Mass Law Blog on March 18, 2009 (boomark / email).