Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

Neurovision Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Public Limited Company et al, No. 2:16-cv-00127 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2016)

Claims Construed
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:16-cv-00127, Dkt. No. 89
Decided
October 27, 2016
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order
Length
50 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court is the opening claim construction brief of Neurovision Medical Products, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) (Dkt. No. 70, filed under seal on September 6, 2016),1 the response of Medtronic Xomed, Inc., Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic PLC, HCA Holdings, Inc., and Healthtrust Purchasing Group, L.P. (collectively “Defendants”) (Dkt. No. 76, filed on September 20, 2016), and the reply of Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 82, filed on September 27, 2016). The Court held a hearing on the issues of clai m construction and claim definiteness on October 17, 2016.