CAFC Revives Patent Infringement Claims in Maquet v. Abiomed Heart Pump Dispute

A federal court has revived parts of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Getinge against Johnson & Johnson’s Abiomed, concerning technology used in heart pumps. The decision, issued Monday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), represents a partial win for Getinge, allowing them to pursue infringement claims on five patents after finding the lower court improperly interpreted key claim terms.

The dispute originated in May 2016, when Abiomed filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that its Impella heart pumps did not infringe six patents held by Maquet Cardiovascular LLC (now part of Getinge) and that those patents were invalid. Maquet responded with a counterclaim alleging infringement and seeking damages. The patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,022,100, 8,888,728, 9,327,068, 9,545,468, 9,561,314 and 9,597,437 – relate to intravascular blood pump systems designed to assist the heart.

The core of the legal battle centered on the interpretation of specific claim terms within the patents. The district court, under Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, held a Markman hearing in September 2018 to clarify these terms. Following the hearing, Maquet narrowed its infringement claims to two claims of the ‘100 patent. In 2021, the district court granted Abiomed summary judgment, finding no infringement of the ‘100 patent based on its claim construction. A final judgment of non-infringement on all asserted patents followed in September 2023, prompting Maquet’s appeal.

The CAFC sided with Maquet on several key points of contention. Specifically, the appeals court found that the district court erred in narrowly defining “an elongate lumen associated with the cannula” as merely a “lumen formed along the side of the cannula.” The lower court’s restrictive interpretation was based on statements Maquet made during a separate inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The CAFC determined that these statements did not meet the “clear and unmistakable” standard required to invoke the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer, meaning they couldn’t be used to limit the scope of the patent claims.

The court also found fault with the district court’s construction of “purge fluid” limitations. The lower court had concluded that the purge fluid did not enter the bloodstream, again relying on statements made during the IPR. The CAFC reversed this, stating that the district court improperly added a limitation not found within the patent itself. The patent specification, the CAFC noted, explicitly allows for purge fluid to pass through bearing assemblies and into the bloodstream to prevent clotting.

However, the CAFC upheld the district court’s interpretation of the “guide mechanism” term in the ‘100 patent. The court agreed that this term constituted a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, because it lacked a sufficiently definite structural description. The court also affirmed the lower court’s identification of the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent’s specification.

the summary judgment of non-infringement for the ‘100 patent was upheld. The CAFC found that no reasonable jury could conclude that Abiomed’s Impella devices contained a “guide mechanism” equivalent to the structures described in Maquet’s patent, noting the pigtail on the Impella device is attached at the distal end, not “formed along” the cannula sidewall as the claim construction required.

The CAFC vacated the judgment concerning the ‘728, ‘068, ‘468, ‘314, and ‘437 patents, remanding the case to the District of Massachusetts for further proceedings. These patents will be re-examined under the broader claim constructions established by the CAFC for “elongate lumen” and “purge fluid.”

This decision represents a significant development in the ongoing patent dispute between Getinge and Abiomed. While Abiomed secured a win on the ‘100 patent, the revival of claims on the other five patents introduces renewed uncertainty and potential financial exposure. The case highlights the importance of precise claim construction in patent litigation and the limitations of using statements made in IPR proceedings to narrow the scope of patent claims.