VNUS Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Diomed Holdings, Inc.

Good Law
527 F. Supp. 2d 1072·2007 WL 3165548·2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96793
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 24, 2007C-05-2972 MMCCalifornia2,266 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chesney, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT

Before the Court is defendants AngioD-ynamics, Inc. (“AngioDynamies”), Vascular Solutions, Inc., (“VSI”), Diomed Holding, Inc., and Diomed, Inc.’s (collectively, “Diomed”) “Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement,” filed October 1, 2007. Plaintiff VNUS Medical Technologies, Inc. (“VNUS”) has filed opposition, to which defendants have replied. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.

To establish willful infringement, a patentee must prove “the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent” and such objective risk “was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.” See In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 , 1371 (Fed.Cir.2007).

Defendants argue VNUS lacks evidence to establish the existence of an “objectively high likelihood” that any defendant’s actions constituted infringement. In opposition, VNUS argues it can establish its claim of willfulness, in light of evidence VNUS…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.