DCT

0:19-cv-01760

Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:19-cv-01760, D. Minn., 07/02/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Minnesota because Defendant Medtronic, Inc. is incorporated in and is a resident of Minnesota, and both defendants maintain offices and transact business within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Telescope Guide Extension Catheter infringes five patents related to coaxial guide catheter systems used in interventional cardiology procedures.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns specialized catheters designed to be used coaxially with standard guide catheters to provide enhanced "backup support" when advancing other medical devices through complex or blocked coronary arteries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff’s patent portfolio relating to its GuideLiner catheter as of at least February 22, 2019, and that Defendant sought but was denied a license. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, several of the asserted patents were the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. These proceedings resulted in the cancellation of numerous claims, including claims 12 and 14 of the ’032 patent and claims 12, 13, and 15 of the ’380 patent, all of which are asserted in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-05-03 Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2011-11-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,048,032 Issues
2015-02-17 U.S. Patent No. RE45,380 Issues
2015-10-20 U.S. Patent No. RE45,760 Issues
2015-10-27 U.S. Patent No. RE45,776 Issues
2019-02-22 Alleged date of Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of patent portfolio
2019-05-07 U.S. Patent No. RE47,379 Issues
2019-05-16 Date of press release for Accused Product
2019-07-02 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,048,032 - *"Coaxial Guide Catheter for Interventional Cardiology Procedures"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In interventional cardiology, standard guide catheters are used to access coronary arteries. However, when a physician attempts to push another device (e.g., a stent catheter) through the guide catheter to treat a tough lesion, the backward force can dislodge the guide catheter from its position in the artery’s opening (ostium), complicating the procedure (’032 Patent, col. 1:36-40). Prior attempts to provide better "backup support" were often mechanically complex, risky, or interfered with the procedure (’032 Patent, col. 1:41 - col. 2:48).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a "coaxial guide catheter" designed to be delivered through a standard guide catheter. This inner coaxial catheter features a flexible distal tip for safe placement and a unique, substantially rigid proximal portion that acts as a "guidewire rail segment" (’032 Patent, col. 2:51-57). This rail structure provides the necessary stiffness to resist dislodgement forces without completely blocking the lumen of the outer guide catheter, thereby allowing for "deep seating" of the system for better support (’032 Patent, col. 6:36-54).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a method for achieving enhanced backup support that is deliverable through standard, commonly used equipment, potentially increasing the safety and success rate of complex coronary interventions (’032 Patent, col. 5:4-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 12 and 14, which depend from independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶30).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 11 include:
    • An elongate structure with an overall length longer than a standard guide catheter.
    • A flexible tip portion defining a tubular structure with a coaxial lumen for interventional devices.
    • A reinforced portion located proximally to the flexible tip.
    • A substantially rigid portion located proximally to the reinforced portion, which defines a "rail structure without a lumen" and has a smaller cross-section than the flexible tip.
    • The structure is long enough that when the tip is extended beyond the guide catheter, the rigid portion extends proximally through the guide catheter's hemostatic valve.

U.S. Patent No. RE45,380 E - *"Coaxial Guide Catheter for Interventional Cardiology Procedures"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the ’032 Patent, this patent addresses the challenge of providing sufficient backup support to a guide catheter to prevent it from being dislodged from a coronary artery during a procedure (’380 Patent, col. 1:57 - col. 2:2).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a system comprising a standard guide catheter in combination with a coaxial guide extension device. The extension device features a flexible distal portion that can be safely advanced into the artery and a more rigid proximal "rail structure" that provides stiffness and support while residing partially inside and partially outside the main guide catheter (’380 Patent, col. 3:9-20; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows clinicians to add significant support to a standard catheter system when needed, using familiar delivery techniques to treat difficult arterial lesions (’380 Patent, col. 5:28-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13 and 15 (Compl. ¶49).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 12 include:
    • A system comprising a standard guide catheter and a separate device.
    • The device has an elongate structure longer than the guide catheter.
    • The device includes a flexible tip portion, a reinforced portion, and a substantially rigid portion defining a rail structure without a lumen.
    • A key structural limitation requires that the "flexible tip portion is more flexible than the reinforced portion."
    • The device is configured such that when its tip is advanced out of the guide catheter, its rigid portion extends back through the guide catheter’s valve.

U.S. Patent No. RE45,776 E - *"Coaxial Guide Catheter for Interventional Cardiology Procedures"*

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family, is directed to the coaxial guide extension catheter device itself. It claims a device with a substantially rigid segment, a segment defining a partially cylindrical side opening, and a distal tubular structure for guiding interventional devices.
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 25, 36, and 37 are asserted (Compl. ¶71).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Telescope guide extension catheter itself infringes the claims of the ’776 Patent (Compl. ¶71).

U.S. Patent No. RE47,379 E - *"Coaxial Guide Catheter for Interventional Cardiology Procedures"*

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to methods of forming the coaxial guide catheter device. It claims methods for providing and arranging the flexible tip, reinforced segment, substantially rigid segment, and side opening portion.
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 25, 33, 34, 38, and 44 are asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), which relates to importing products made by a patented process (Compl. ¶89).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Telescope guide extension catheters are made by a process patented in the United States and are subsequently imported, offered for sale, or used by Defendant (Compl. ¶89).

U.S. Patent No. RE45,760 E - *"Coaxial Guide Catheter for Interventional Cardiology Procedures"*

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a system for use with interventional cardiology devices. The claims cover a system including the guide extension catheter, which itself comprises a substantially rigid segment, a side opening, and a distal tubular structure.
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 25, 28, 29, 32, and 48 are asserted (Compl. ¶117).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by a system made up of the Telescope 6F catheter and Medtronic Guide Catheters (Compl. ¶117).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused product is Defendant’s "Telescope Guide Extension Catheter," which is available in 6F and 7F sizes (Compl. ¶¶11-12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Telescope catheter is designed to be used "in conjunction with guide catheters to access discrete regions of the coronary and/or peripheral vasculature, and to facilitate placement of interventional devices" (Compl. ¶24). It is marketed to function "as an extension to a traditional guide catheter" (Compl. ¶24). Plaintiff alleges the Telescope product is a "copy of VSI's industry-leading and bestselling interventional product, the GuideLiner catheter" (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exs. L, M, N, O, P) that were not provided with the complaint document. The following is a summary of the narrative infringement theory.

'032 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the Telescope catheter directly infringes at least claims 12 and 14 of the ’032 Patent (Compl. ¶30). It asserts that the accused catheter satisfies all the elements of the underlying independent claim 11 and specifically references a claim chart in Exhibit L for the detailed element-by-element mapping (Compl. ¶¶31-39). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific mapping of claim elements to accused functionality.

'380 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that a "system made up of" the Telescope catheter and Defendant's "Medtronic Guide Catheters" infringes at least claims 12, 13, and 15 of the ’380 Patent (Compl. ¶49). It asserts that this combination of products meets the limitations of independent system claim 12 and references a claim chart in Exhibit M for the detailed mapping (Compl. ¶¶50-60). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific mapping of claim elements to accused functionality.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Claim Viability: A threshold legal issue is that the asserted claims for both the ’032 Patent (12, 14) and the ’380 Patent (12, 13, 15) were cancelled in post-filing IPR proceedings. This raises the question of whether Plaintiff's infringement allegations for these specific claims remain viable.
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the claim term "a substantially rigid portion ... defining a rail structure without a lumen." The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused Telescope catheter has a component that meets this structural definition, which is central to the patented solution for providing backup support.
  • Technical Questions: For the system claims of the ’380 Patent, the analysis will require evidence that Defendant’s customers actually combine the Telescope catheter with a Medtronic guide catheter to create the claimed system. The complaint's allegations that Defendant’s instructions direct this combination may be used to support this theory (Compl. ¶64).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"a substantially rigid portion ... defining a rail structure without a lumen" (’032 Patent, Claim 11)

Context and Importance

  • This term describes the core inventive concept for providing backup support. The definition of what constitutes a "rail structure" and how "substantially rigid" it must be will be critical to determining the scope of the claim and whether the accused device, which is also an elongated catheter-like device, infringes.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this portion as being formed from a "hypotube" and being more rigid than the distal flexible portions. Parties arguing for a broader scope may suggest that any elongate, stiffening member that guides the device along a path could meet the "rail structure" definition, regardless of its specific cross-sectional shape (’032 Patent, col. 4:50-52).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures depict specific embodiments where a significant portion of the circumference of a tube is removed, creating a "hemicylindrical portion" or an "arcuate portion." Parties arguing for a narrower scope may contend that the term "rail structure" is limited to these disclosed open-channel configurations that are distinct from a simple solid rod or full-circumference tube (’032 Patent, col. 6:42-54; Figs. 12-16).

"wherein the flexible tip portion is more flexible than the reinforced portion" (’380 Patent, Claim 12)

Context and Importance

  • This limitation defines a relative physical property—a flexibility gradient—between two adjacent sections of the device. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on objective, measurable evidence comparing the material properties of the accused device's construction.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim suggests that any measurable difference in flexibility, where the tip is less resistant to bending than the section behind it, would satisfy the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses using different durometer polymers (e.g., 4033 Pebax® vs. 5533 Pebax®) to achieve this gradient (’380 Patent, col. 7:7-14). An argument for a narrower construction could suggest the term implies a functionally significant difference in flexibility, as exemplified by the specific materials disclosed for achieving atraumatic placement while maintaining support.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five patents. The inducement theory is based on allegations that Defendant’s Instructions for Use, marketing materials, and FDA submissions actively encourage and instruct customers to use the Telescope catheter in combination with a guide catheter in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶42, 64, 83, 111, 139). The contributory infringement theory alleges the Telescope catheter is a material component of the patented systems, is especially made for infringing use, and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶65, 112, 140).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged for all five patents. The complaint bases this on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent portfolio as of at least February 22, 2019, and allegations that Defendant "copied VSI's GuideLiner catheter" (Compl. ¶¶43-44, 66, 84, 141).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A threshold issue will be one of claim viability: given that the specific claims asserted from the two lead patents were cancelled in post-filing IPRs, the court must first determine whether these counts can proceed or if Plaintiff must amend its pleadings to assert surviving claims from the patent family.
  • A core issue will be one of structural scope: can the term "rail structure without a lumen," which is described in the patent with specific hemicylindrical embodiments, be construed to cover the corresponding support structure of the accused Telescope catheter, or is there a fundamental difference in their construction?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement by combination: for the asserted system claims, does the evidence of Defendant's product instructions and customer use demonstrate that the accused Telescope catheter is combined with a guide catheter to form a system that meets every limitation of the asserted claims?