Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education v. Varian Medical Systems

January 17, 2012

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
DEFENDANT.



1/17/2012 11:34 am

ELECTRONICALLY FILED ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS (PART II)

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE THIS IS A PATENT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT. THE PLAINTIFF IS THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, WHICH OWNS THE PATENT THAT IS AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE. THE DEFENDANT IS VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, A COMPANY THAT MANUFACTURES AND SELLS MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING EQUIPMENT USED TO TREAT CANCER PATIENTS. I'LL REFER TO THE PARTIES AS "PITT" AND "VARIAN."

PITT ALLEGES THAT VARIAN MAKES AND SELLS PRODUCTS THAT INFRINGE U.S. PATENT NO. 5,727,554, WHICH THE PARTIES REFERRED TO AS THE '554 PATENT. SPECIFICALLY, PITT CLAIMS THAT VARIAN'S RPM GATING SYSTEM, AS WELL AS THE COMBINATION OF THE RPM GATING SYSTEM AND VARIAN'S CLINAC AND TRILOGY LINEAR ACCELERATORS, INFRINGE THE '554 PATENT. IN ADDITION, PITT ALLEGES THAT VARIAN'S INFRINGEMENT OF THAT PATENT HAS BEEN WILLFUL. THE CONCEPT OF WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT IS SOMETHING I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU SHORTLY.

THIS COURT HAS ALREADY RULED THAT THE VARIAN PRODUCTS AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE DO IN FACT INFRINGE THE '554 PATENT. BECAUSE VARIAN'S INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENT HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED, THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE YOU NEED TO DECIDE. INSTEAD, THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THIS TRIAL, AND THE ONLY ISSUE YOU ARE TO DECIDE, IS WHETHER VARIAN'S INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENT WAS WILLFUL.

WHETHER VARIAN'S INFRINGEMENT IS WILLFUL RELATES TO THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES PITT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN THIS LAWSUIT. IF YOU DECIDE THAT VARIAN WILLFULLY INFRINGED THE CLAIMS OF PITT'S PATENT, THEN IT IS MY JOB TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO AWARD INCREASED DAMAGES TO PITT.

VIEW FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER STREAMING VIDEO ENTITLED "AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PATENT SYSTEM" OF OCTOBER 2002.

SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS TO HELP YOU FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE, I WILL NOW GIVE YOU A SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES' POSITIONS.

AS I STATED ABOVE, THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE ARE PITT, THE PATENT HOLDER, AND VARIAN, THE ALLEGED INFRINGER. THE CASE INVOLVES UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,727,554, OBTAINED BY FIVE (5) INVENTORS WHO TRANSFERRED THOSE INVENTIONS TO PITT. FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE, THE PARTIES AND I WILL OFTEN REFER TO THIS PATENT NUMBER 5,727,554 BY THE LAST THREE NUMBERS OF THE PATENT NUMBER, NAMELY, AS "THE '554 PATENT."

PITT FILED SUIT IN THIS COURT SEEKING MONEY DAMAGES FROM VARIAN FOR ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING THE '554 PATENT BY MAKING, USING, SELLING, AND OFFERING FOR SALE, IN THE UNITED STATES, PRODUCTS THAT PITT ARGUED ARE COVERED, BY CLAIMS 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 36 AND 38 OF THE '554 PATENT.

VARIAN INITIALLY ARGUED IN THIS CASE THAT ITS PRODUCTS DO NOT INFRINGE THE '554 PATENT. I HAVE DETERMINED, HOWEVER, THAT VARIAN'S PRODUCTS DO, IN FACT, INFRINGE THOSE CLAIMS OF THE '554 PATENT. IN PARTICULAR, I HAVE DETERMINED THAT VARIAN'S RPM RESPIRATORY GATING SYSTEM ALONE AND IN COMBINATION WITH VARIAN'S CLINAC AND TRILOGY LINEAR ACCELERATORS, INFRINGE PITT'S '554 PATENT.

I HAVE ALSO DETERMINED THAT VARIAN'S NON-INFRINGEMENT ARGUMENTS ARE UNREASONABLE. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, YOU MUST ACCEPT AS BINDING MY DETERMINATION THAT VARIAN'S PRODUCTS INFRINGE THE '554 PATENT AND THAT VARIAN'S NON-INFRINGEMENT ARGUMENTS WERE NOT REASONABLE.

VARIAN ARGUES THAT CLAIMS 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 36 AND 38 OF THE '554 PATENT ARE INVALID. I WILL INSTRUCT YOU LATER AS TO THE WAYS IN WHICH A PATENT MAY BE INVALID. IN GENERAL, HOWEVER, A PATENT IS INVALID IF IT IS NOT NEW OR IT IS OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE STATE OF THE ART AT THE RELEVANT TIME, OR IF THE DESCRIPTION IN THE PATENT DOES NOT MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.

WHETHER THE CLAIMS OF THE '554 PATENT ARE, IN FACT, INVALID IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DECIDE IN THIS CASE. INSTEAD, YOUR JOB IN THIS CASE IS TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES AND DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY WHETHER PITT HAS PROVEN THAT VARIAN'S PATENT INVALIDITY DEFENSES ARE UNREASONABLE. AGAIN, I WILL NOT ASK YOU TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE CLAIMS ARE, IN FACT, INVALID. YOUR JOB WILL BE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT PITT HAS PROVEN THAT VARIAN'S INVALIDITY DEFENSE(S) ARE UNREASONABLE AND, IF SO, WHETHER OR NOT YOU FIND ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.