Abiomed Inc v. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-02135
• Patent #: 7,022,100
• Filed: September 22, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Abiomed, Inc., Abiomed R&D, Inc., and Abiomed Europe GmbH
• Patent Owner(s): Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 16-17

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Intravascular Blood Pump System with Guide Mechanism
• Brief Description: The ’100 patent relates to an intravascular blood pump system designed for placement within a patient's circulatory system. The technology focuses on a guide mechanism, such as an over-the-wire catheter, used to deliver the pump and an associated cannula to a predetermined location to provide cardiac support.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 16-17 are obvious over Sammler in view of Aboul-Hosn.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Sammler (DE 19821307) and Aboul-Hosn (WO 99/02204).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Sammler and Aboul-Hosn disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. Sammler taught the foundational intravascular blood pump system, including a pump, a coupled cannula (pump hose), and a guide mechanism comprising a guidewire and a corresponding lumen. Petitioner contended that while Sammler disclosed its guidewire "passes through the...pump," it lacked specific detail on the implementation. Aboul-Hosn, an analogous art reference, was argued to supply this missing detail by teaching a well-known "over-the-wire" guide mechanism for an intravascular pump. Aboul-Hosn explicitly showed a guidewire passing through co-aligned central passages in the drive unit, pump rotor, and cannula. Petitioner asserted that implementing Aboul-Hosn's detailed over-the-wire path into Sammler's system would have been an obvious modification. For the "blood pressure detection mechanism" required by independent claim 16, Sammler disclosed that its guidewire lumen could be used for pressure measurement after the guidewire is removed, creating a fluid-filled column connected to a pressure measuring instrument. This fluid column satisfied the final limitation of claim 16.
  • Dependent Claim 17: Petitioner argued that this claim, which requires the blood pressure detection mechanism to comprise at least one of a "fluid filled column," a piezoelectric element, or a strain gauge, was rendered obvious because Sammler’s guidewire lumen, when used for pressure measurement post-guidewire removal, explicitly formed the claimed "fluid filled column."
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking to implement Sammler's stated but undetailed teaching of a guidewire passing through the pump, would be motivated to consult analogous art for a known solution. Aboul-Hosn provided a direct, established method—the over-the-wire technique with co-aligned central passages—to achieve Sammler's intended functionality, making the combination logical and straightforward to improve the placement and operation of the pump system.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying a conventional and well-understood guidance technique (from Aboul-Hosn) to a standard intravascular pump system (from Sammler). The integration was a predictable assembly of known components to achieve the desired result of guided pump placement.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner contended that two key claim terms should be construed under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) as means-plus-function limitations due to their failure to recite sufficient corresponding structure for performing their stated functions.
• "guide mechanism adapted to guide...": Petitioner argued this term was functional and should be construed to cover the corresponding structures disclosed in the ’100 patent specification: a guidewire passing through a central lumen, a guide carriage with a lumen, or a conduit assembly.
• "blood pressure detection mechanism to detect...": Similarly, Petitioner asserted this term was functional and should be construed to cover the corresponding structures described in the patent, namely a fluid-filled column, a piezoelectric element, or a strain gauge.
• Petitioner maintained that, regardless of whether a §112(f) construction was applied, the asserted prior art combination disclosed structures that met these limitations.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that institution was proper and that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was unwarranted, despite a previously filed petition against the ’100 patent (IPR2017-01025).
• The core argument was that the instant petition was not based on the "same or substantially the same prior art or arguments" as the earlier proceeding because it relied on a new primary reference, Sammler.
• Petitioner further contended that institution was fair and not prejudicial to the Patent Owner, alleging that the Patent Owner had made "significant misrepresentations" in the earlier proceeding that influenced the Board's decision and that this new petition provided an opportunity to correct the record with new evidence.
• Finally, the petition asserted it was filed without undue delay and sought to conserve Board resources by challenging only a small subset of claims asserted in parallel district court litigation.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 16-17 of Patent 7,022,100 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.