直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Surviving the Attack: Federal Circuit Holds All Heart Valve Patent Claims Valid

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.

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Obviousness (35 USC § 103), anticipation, combining references, claim construction, validity

Related Practices

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Medical Device and Diagnostics

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Kara A. Specht
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6481
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

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.

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

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

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP