October 27, 2020
Authored and Edited by Tyler B. Latcham; Kara A. Specht; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC, Nos. 2019-2108, 2019-2109, 2019-2140 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2020), the Federal Circuit held valid all challenged claims of Snyders’ artificial heart valve patent.
On appeal, St. Jude first disputed the Board’s application of its construction of “band.” The Board substantially adopted the construction advanced by St. Jude, requiring that it be a “closed ring or strip.” The Board held that prior art disclosing a “sleeve” did not disclose a “closed ring or strip.” St. Jude argued that the Board changed its construction upon application because “band” should not inherently include a limitation on length or width. The Federal Circuit found this argument “meritless,” relying on St. Jude’s own use of terms “strip” and “ring” within its construction and being distinguishable from the “sleeve” of the prior art.
Second, Snyders disputed whether other claims were anticipated by the prior art. The Federal Circuit overturned the Board’s anticipation holding, determining that the prior art that did not disclose native valve removal did not anticipate the claims because the patent specifically claimed the ability to insert an artificial valve without native valve removal.
Finally, The Federal Circuit also rejected St. Jude’s obviousness arguments because St. Jude failed to prove that a skilled artisan would combine specific elements of each reference to arrive at the challenged claims.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Obviousness (35 USC § 103), anticipation, combining references, claim construction, validity
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.