ACCLaRent Inc v. AlbrITTon Ford

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-00498
• Patent #: 9,011,412
• Filed: December 15, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Acclarent, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Ford Albritton, IV
• Challenged Claims: 1-7 and 14-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Guide Catheter Apparatus and Method
• Brief Description: The ’412 patent discloses a guide catheter apparatus for insertion into a body passage. The apparatus features a handle structure designed for single-handed operation, allowing a user to control the guide catheter's position with three fingers while using the thumb and index finger to manipulate a working device and control suction through the catheter's lumen.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 7, 14-18, and 20 are anticipated by Goldfarb

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Goldfarb (Patent 8,747,389)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Goldfarb disclosed every structural element of the challenged claims. Goldfarb’s device was described as a guide catheter system with an optional handle configured for single-handed use, which frees the other hand. The handle structure was shown to be similar to that of the ’412 patent, with a handle member extending at an angle from the head. Petitioner asserted that Goldfarb explicitly taught a working catheter insertable through the handle's bore, a handle coupling (Luer fitting) configured to connect a suction source to the lumen, and a "thumb/finger hole" on the handle to control suction flow. Petitioner contended that functional limitations in the claims, such as the handle being "adapted to permit" manipulation of a working device with the thumb and index finger, were inherent capabilities of Goldfarb’s disclosed physical structure.
  • Key Aspects: A key argument was that Goldfarb's handle is malleable, allowing it to be shaped by a user to facilitate the claimed one-handed grip and control, further aligning its capabilities with the patent's functional claims.

Ground 2: Claims 1-2, 4-7, 14-15, and 17-20 are anticipated by McCabe

• Prior Art Relied Upon: McCabe (Patent 5,562,640)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that McCabe, which discloses an endoscopic surgical instrument, anticipated the claims. McCabe’s instrument was described as having a pistol-type handle coupled to a cannula (the claimed "guide catheter"). The handle was designed for single-handed operation and included a port for an optical fiber (a "working device") and a separate rotatable connection port for coupling a suction source to the cannula's lumen. Petitioner asserted that McCabe's handle structure inherently allows for control by three fingers, leaving the thumb and index finger free. To meet the limitation of controlling suction with a thumb or index finger, Petitioner pointed to McCabe’s disclosure of a valve member and a slidable outer sleeve on the cannula, both of which are positioned to be manipulated by the operator’s thumb or index finger to control fluid flow and suction.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner argued that the physical pistol-grip configuration of McCabe's handle was structurally similar to that shown in the ’412 patent, and that its design for ambidextrous use was capable of performing all the claimed functions.

Ground 3: Claims 4-6 and 17-19 are obvious over Makower in view of Jones

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Makower (Application # 2006/0063973) and Jones (Patent 4,915,691)

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner first established that Makower disclosed a base guide catheter system with a Y-connector handle for single-handed control, a port for a working device, and a side arm for suction. However, Makower’s suction control was a rotating hemostasis valve, not the specific second opening for thumb/finger control recited in claims 4 and 17. Petitioner then introduced Jones, which explicitly addresses the problem of needing two hands for suction procedures—one to hold the device and one to control suction. Jones solved this by teaching a medical aspirator with a pistol grip and a conveniently located "thumb control hole" to allow a single operator to vary suction.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Makower’s guide catheter system with the thumb-control suction port from Jones to achieve the known and desirable goal of single-handed suction control. Modifying Makower’s handle to include a simple vent hole, as taught by Jones, would have been a simple, predictable design choice to improve its functionality.
  • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success would have been high, as adding a suction control hole to a surgical handle was a common and well-understood technique in the art for regulating vacuum pressure, and its implementation would have yielded predictable results.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claims 6 and 19 are obvious over Goldfarb alone by incorporating a known rotating luer lock, and that claims 1-2, 7, 14-15, and 20 are anticipated by Makower alone.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "handle coupling": Petitioner proposed the construction "a device for directly or indirectly connecting two parts (the lumen and a source of suction)." This construction was argued to be broad enough to cover indirect connections through the handle body itself, as shown in the prior art, not just a single, direct component.
• "structure": Petitioner proposed the construction "something built or constructed." It was argued that since the claims recite broad functional capabilities for this "structure" without defining its specific form, the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, thereby encompassing the general handle configurations found in the prior art.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-7 and 14-20 of the ’412 patent as unpatentable.