Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that accused product did not directly infringe claim term “operatively joined” where limitation of anchor seat contacting bone was not met until surgeon connected them
• holding there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether surgeons infringe by “making” the claimed product when they complete the last limitation (contacting the anchor seat of the device with bone)
• holding there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether surgeons infringe by “making” the claimed product when they complete the last limitation (contacting the anchor seat of the device with bone)
• rejecting patentees’ efforts to combine the acts of surgeons with those of a medical device manufacturer to find direct infringement of an apparatus claim
• finding “no basis” to 3 “extend the limitation to cover alternative, non-disclosed structure not shown to be structurally 4 equivalent”
• using the same standard to analyze infringement of both system claims and apparatus claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).