United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
HAEMONETICS CORP.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP. AND FENWAL INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
__________________________
2009-1557
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in Case No. 05-CV-12572, Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton.
____________________________
Decided: June 2, 2010
____________________________
THOMAS J. PARKER, Alston & Bird LLP, of New York,
New York, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Of counsel on the
brief was MARGARET H. PAGET, Sherin & Lodgen LLP, of
Boston, Massachusetts. Of counsel were JAMES W.
MATTHEWS and KATY E. KOSKI, Sherin & Lodgen LLP, of
Boston, Massachusetts; and KAMRAN JIVANI, Alston &
Bird LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia.
GREGORY A. CASTANIAS, Jones Day, of Washington,
DC, argued for defendants-appellants. With him on the
HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE 2
brief were LUKE A. SOBOTA and PAUL R. GUGLIUZZA; and
JOHN J. NORMILE, of New York, New York.
__________________________
Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Baxter Healthcare Corp. and Fenwal Inc. (collectively,
“Fenwal”) appeal from the decision of the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting
judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) that asserted claim
16 of U.S. Patent 6,705,983 (“the ’983 patent”) is not
indefinite, from the district court’s denial of JMOL that
claim 16 was either anticipated by prior invention or
obvious, and from the court’s award of prospective reme-
dies. Because the district court erred in its construction
of “centrifugal unit” in claim 16, thereby affecting the
court’s other determinations, we reverse in part, vacate in
part, and remand.
BACKGROUND
Haemonetics Corp. (“Haemonetics”) and Fenwal both
manufacture and sell centrifuge devices designed to
separate red blood cells (“RBCs”) from human blood by
apheresis. In contrast to manual collection, in which an
individual donates whole blood, apheresis involves collect-
ing RBCs directly from a donor connected to an auto-
mated centrifuge system. The system separates and
collects RBCs from the donor’s drawn blood before return-
ing the remaining blood components to the donor, thus
yielding up to double the volume of RBCs from a single
donation compared to manual collection. An important
feature of apheresis centrifuge devices is portability since
approximately 70 to 80% of blood collection in the United
States takes place on mobile blood drives. Haemonetics
sells two portable RBC apheresis devices suitable for use
3 HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE
on mobile blood drives: the MCS®+, introduced in 1995,
and the CymbalTM, introduced in 2007. In 2003, Fenwal
introduced its portable RBC apheresis device, the ALYX®
system.
Haemonetics is the owner by assignment of the ’983
patent, which claims a compact blood centrifuge device for
separating and collecting components in a liquid such as
blood. The ’983 patent describes a centrifugal device
comprising (1) a vessel in which blood components are
separated in a separation chamber and (2) tubing through
which blood flows in and out of the vessel. The tubing
connects the spinning vessel to a non-rotating support
structure, forming a question mark-shaped loop around
the vessel.
Figure 1 of the ’983 patent illustrates the claimed cen-
trifugal device.
HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE 4
Figure 1 shows the configuration of the vessel, marked as
number 2, and its associated tubing, numbers 4a, 5a, and
6a, which are enclosed in tubular component 9. The
vessel and the tubes comprise the mobile unit that con-
nects to the centrifugal rotor, number 1, and that the user
discards after each use. See ’983 patent col.5 ll.1-7.
On December 22, 2005, Haemonetics brought suit
against Fenwal in the United States District Court for the
5 HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE
District of Massachusetts, 1 alleging infringement of the
’983 patent by Fenwal’s ALYX® centrifugal system. After
claim construction and summary judgment motions,
Haemonetics limited its allegation of infringement to
claim 16. Fenwal counterclaimed that claim 16 was
invalid as indefinite, as anticipated by prior invention,
and as obvious.
Claim 16 claims a centrifugal unit that includes a
centrifugal component, which the parties agree refers to
the vessel, and a plurality of tubes. It reads as follows:
A centrifugal unit comprising a centrifugal com-
ponent and a plurality of tubes, said unit to turn
around an axis to separate the components of a
liquid, blood in particular, with such plurality of
tubes displaying a single tubular component
wherein said unit includes:
a base in the form of a disk;
an external cylindrical wall extending
from the base;
an internal cylindrical wall extending from the
base and separated by the external wall so as to
define a ring-shaped separation chamber among
each other;
a tubular housing almost extending coaxially
to said rotating axis from the base to receive an
end of a tubular unit; and
a plurality of channels extending radially in
the base of the centrifugal unit, with each channel
providing communication between a respective
1 Haemonetics initially brought suit against Baxter
Healthcare Corp. and Baxter International Inc. Hae-
monetics later added Fenwal Inc. as a defendant in March
2007 when Fenwal became an independent corporation as
a result of Baxter’s divestiture of its transfusion therapies
business, which included the ALYX® centrifugal system.
HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE 6
tube of the tubular unit and the separation cham-
ber, with the centrifugal unit having a radius be-
tween 25 and 50 mm and a height between 75 and
125% of the radius.
Id. claim 16 (emphases added).
On August 16, 2007, the district court issued a claim
construction order and construed the term “centrifugal
unit” as used in claim 16. The court held, and the parties
agreed, that “centrifugal unit” as used in the claim’s first
line means “the combination of both the vessel and the
tubing.” Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
517 F. Supp. 2d 514, 518 (D. Mass. 2007). Nevertheless,
the court construed the claim’s remaining two references
to “centrifugal unit,” including the final one in the context
of the “height” and “radius” limitations, to mean only the
vessel. Id. at 519-20. The court relied on claim 16’s use of
identical dimensions to the patent’s other independent
claims, which the parties agreed used “centrifugal unit” to
refer exclusively to the vessel. Id. at 519. The court
reasoned that, because the vessel and the tubing together
are always larger than the vessel alone, giving “centrifu-
gal unit” a construction that includes the tubing in the
context of the dimensional limitations “would yield an
absurdity.” Id.
Following claim construction, the case proceeded to
trial before a jury. At the close of evidence, the district
court granted without opinion Haemonetics’s motion for
JMOL that claim 16 was not indefinite. The jury then
found claim 16 infringed and not invalid, and awarded
Haemonetics over $11.3 million in lost profits damages
and over $4.3 million in reasonable royalty damages. The
district court denied Fenwal’s motions for JMOL on
anticipation and obviousness without opinion, then en-
tered a permanent injunction to begin on December 1,
7 HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE
2010, and finally ordered Fenwal to pay a 10% royalty on
sales of the infringing kits made after the jury verdict of
infringement.
Fenwal timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursu-
ant to 19 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
I.
We begin with the district court’s construction of the
claim term “centrifugal unit.” Claim construction is an
issue of law, Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
F.3d 967, 977-78 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), which this
court reviews de novo, Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,
138 F.3d 1448, 1454-55 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). The
words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc).
Fenwal argues that the district court erred in constru-
ing “centrifugal unit” in the body of claim 16 to refer to
just the vessel when the plain language of the claim’s
preamble defines the unit as comprising a vessel and a
plurality of tubes. According to Fenwal, the district
court’s construction violates black letter claim construc-
tion law by either rendering superfluous “comprising a
centrifugal component” or rendering “centrifugal unit”
redundant with “centrifugal component.” Instead, Fenwal
asserts, “centrifugal unit” should be construed to refer to
the vessel and its associated tubing throughout claim 16,
a construction that tracks the specification’s description of
such an embodiment at column 3, lines 21 through 22,
and which accomplishes the invention’s goal of creating a
small, portable apheresis machine.
HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE 8
Haemonetics responds that the specification makes
clear that “centrifugal unit” in the context of the dimen-
sional limitations refers to the vessel alone, as Fenwal
concedes for claims 1 and 20. To reconcile this construc-
tion with claim 16’s first use of the term, which expressly
defines “centrifugal unit” as comprising a centrifugal
component and a plurality of tubes, Haemonetics asserts
that the claim preamble does no more than state the
claimed invention’s intended field of use. Conversely,
Haemonetics argues that Fenwal’s construction of “cen-
trifugal unit” in the body of claim 16 to include the tubing
nonsensically alters the unit’s dimensional limitations;
excludes every embodiment in the specification; and
ignores that the invention’s goals, i.e., small size, light
weight, and economic disposability, depend on the vessel
having the claimed height and radius range.
We agree with Fenwal. Patent claims function to de-
lineate the precise scope of a claimed invention and to
give notice to the public, including potential competitors,
of the patentee’s right to exclude. Bicon, Inc. v.
Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006). This
notice function would be undermined, however, if courts
construed claims so as to render physical structures and
characteristics specifically described in those claims
superfluous. Id.; see also Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R.
Scientific Int’l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(holding that the claim language “extending between
latitudes 30°-45°” did not include latitudes between 14°
and 43° because that would “render[] the reference to 30°
superfluous”). As such, we construe claims with an eye
toward giving effect to all of their terms, Bicon, 441 F.3d
at 950, even if it renders the claims inoperable or invalid,
see Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371,
1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[W]here, as here, claims are sus-
ceptible to only one reasonable interpretation and that
9 HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE
interpretation results in a nonsensical construction of the
claim as a whole, the claim must be invalidated.” (quoting
Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d
1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Elekta Instrument, 214 F.3d
at 1309 (same).
In this case, claim 16’s beginning and, in our view,
controlling language could hardly be clearer. Claim 16
states: “A centrifugal unit comprising a centrifugal
component and a plurality of tubes . . . .” It does not
merely state the intended field of use in a preamble, as
Haemonetics argues. Rather, it unambiguously defines
“centrifugal unit” as “comprising” two structural compo-
nents: a centrifugal component and a plurality of tubes.
The claim then further recites, not the centrifugal compo-
nent and not a centrifugal unit, but “the centrifugal unit”
as “having a radius between 25 and 50 mm and a height
between 75 and 125% of the radius.” Reading “the cen-
trifugal unit” in the context of the dimensional limitations
to refer exclusively to the vessel, as the district court did,
ignores the antecedent basis for “the centrifugal unit,” see
Process Control, 190 F.3d at 1356-57, and fails to give
effect to the claim language “comprising a centrifugal
component,” see Bicon, 441 F.3d at 950.
Furthermore, the specification defines “centrifugal
unit” in the context of the height and radius limitations in
two different embodiments, one that tracks the language
of claim 1, in which the parties agree that “centrifugal
unit” refers to the vessel alone, and one that tracks the
language of claim 16. Specifically, the specification
describes a “first embodiment” in which a centrifugal
device “includes a centrifugal unit with a center and a
rotation axis.” ’983 patent col.2 ll.50-53. In this embodi-
ment, which tracks the language of claim 1, a plurality of
tubes connects to the centrifugal unit, and the “centrifu-
gal unit has a radius between 25 and 50 mm and a height
HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE 10
between 75 and 125% of the radius.” Id. col.2 ll.53-65.
The specification also describes “another embodiment” in
which a centrifugal unit “includes a centrifugal compo-
nent and a plurality of tubes,” tracking the language of
claim 16. Id. col.3 ll.20-22 (emphasis added). Again, the
“centrifugal unit has a radius between 25 and 50 mm and
a height between 75 and 125% of the radius.” Id. col.3
ll.33-35.
The patentee’s inconsistent use of identical height and
radius limitations for two different embodiments thus
indicates that “the centrifugal unit” in the context of the
dimensional limitations must have different meanings in
the context of different claims. Compare Process Control,
190 F.3d at 1356-57 (holding that “a discharge rate” and
“the discharge rate” in the same claim maintained the
same meaning because the written description did not
clearly redefine the term in the different contexts so as to
put one skilled in the art on notice), with Epcon Gas Sys.,
Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1031 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (construing the term “substantially” differently
in the same claim in the context of language of approxi-
mation—“substantially constant”—versus language of
magnitude—“substantially below”). In other words, the
description of two embodiments with each tracking the
language of different independent claims most reasonably
supports a construction in which “centrifugal unit” has
one meaning in claim 1 and another in claim 16. See
Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.,
442 F.3d 1322, 1327-29 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that the
claim term “gap” had different meanings in different
claims based on those claims’ different geometrical con-
texts).
Haemonetics argues, and the district court concluded,
that because the vessel with the tubing is larger than the
vessel alone, construing “centrifugal unit” in the context
11 HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE
of the dimensional limitations to include the tubing
“would yield an absurdity.” Haemonetics, 517 F. Supp. 2d
at 519. Maybe so, but we do not redraft claims to contra-
dict their plain language in order to avoid a nonsensical
result. See, e.g., Elekta Instrument, 214 F.3d at 1309. Cf.
Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.,
587 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that con-
struing “soluble calcium sulfate anhydride” to mean
“soluble anhydrous calcium sulfate” did not rewrite the
claim but “merely restate[d] its plain meaning” in light of
the specification and the knowledge in the art).
Claim 16 defines “centrifugal unit” to include a plural-
ity of tubes and defines the dimensional limitations of
that centrifugal unit. An “error” may have occurred in
drafting claim 16, as Haemonetics’s counsel indicated
during the district court’s claim construction hearing, J.A.
923, but it is what the patentee claimed and what the
public is entitled to rely on. See Process Control, 190 F.3d
at 1357 (“Where, as here, the claim is susceptible to only
one reasonable construction, . . . we must construe the
claims based on the patentee’s version of the claim as he
himself drafted it.”); Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9
F.3d 948, 951 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“It would not be appropri-
ate for us now to interpret the claim differently just to
cure a drafting error . . . . That would unduly interfere
with the function of claims in putting competitors on
notice of the scope of the claimed invention.”).
We thus reverse the district court’s claim construction
and hold that “centrifugal unit” in claim 16 consistently
means a vessel and a plurality of tubes, irrespective of its
meaning in claim 1.
II.
Related to the construction of “centrifugal unit” in
claim 16, Fenwal also appeals the district court’s grant of
HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE 12
JMOL that claim 16 was not indefinite. As with claim
construction, we review a decision on indefiniteness de
novo. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d
1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The Patent Act requires that a patent’s specification
“conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing
out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the
applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
“Because the claims perform the fundamental function of
delineating the scope of the invention, the purpose of the
definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims
delineate the scope of the invention using language that
adequately notifies the public of the patentee’s right to
exclude.” Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1347 (internal citations
omitted).
Yet, because claim construction frequently poses diffi-
cult questions over which reasonable minds may disagree,
proof of indefiniteness must meet “an exacting standard.”
Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d
1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Only claims ‘not amenable
to construction’ or ‘insolubly ambiguous’ are indefinite.”
Id. at 1250 (quoting Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1347). A claim
is not indefinite merely because parties disagree concern-
ing its construction. An accused infringer must thus
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that one of
ordinary skill in the relevant art could not discern the
boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the
specification, the prosecution history, and the knowledge
in the relevant art. Id. at 1249-50.
The district court held that claim 16 is not indefinite
as a matter of law but did not provide a reason for its
conclusion. Fenwal argues that the court erred in that
conclusion and that claim 16 is indefinite because the
terms “radius” and “height” used to define the centrifugal
13 HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE
unit can be measured at several different places, and the
patent does not disclose which is correct. Fenwal, how-
ever, rests its argument exclusively on the district court’s
erroneous construction of “centrifugal unit” in the context
of the dimensional limitations to refer to the vessel alone.
Specifically, Fenwal points to conflicting evidence at trial
regarding whether one skilled in the art would under-
stand “radius” and “height” to refer to the interior dimen-
sions of the vessel, as Fenwal argued, or the exterior
dimensions of the vessel, as Haemonetics argued. While
Fenwal does identify in passing additional radius and
height measurements that include the tubing, Fenwal
does not argue or point to any evidence indicating
whether or not including the tubing in the construction of
“centrifugal unit” makes the radius and height measure-
ments discernable to one of skill in the art and where
around the tubing the measurements are to be made.
Haemonetics also argues the issue of indefiniteness
based only on the district court’s incorrect claim construc-
tion. As a result, this court lacks any evidence in the
record or any argument by the parties directed to where
the height or radius are to be measured when the cen-
trifugal unit includes not only the circular vessel but also
the off-set, question mark-shaped tubes. Given the
change in the unit’s shape in claim 16 under this court’s
construction of “centrifugal unit” and the absence of any
basis on which to decide the issue in the first instance, we
vacate the district court’s grant of JMOL and remand for
a determination of the meaning of “radius” and “height”
under the correct claim construction of “centrifugal unit”
and of whether claim 16 is definite.
III.
Fenwal also appealed the jury’s finding that the ’983
patent was not invalid due to anticipation or obviousness
HAEMONETICS v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE 14
and the district court’s award of prospective remedies.
Again, because the jury’s verdict on invalidity and in-
fringement relied on the district court’s incorrect claim
construction, we vacate the verdict and the award of
prospective remedies and remand for proceedings consis-
tent with this opinion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse in part, vacate
in part, and remand.
REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and
REMANDED