## Facts

- Acumed owned U.S. Patent No. 5,472,444 covering a proximal humeral nail used to treat humerus fractures.
- The asserted claims required, among other elements, a “curved shank” and at least three “transverse holes” in the proximal (“butt”) portion of the nail.
- Stryker manufactured and sold the accused T2 Proximal Humeral Nail and began U.S. sales in early 2004 after receiving legal advice that the product might infringe.
- In the district court, Acumed sued for infringement of multiple patent claims; after claim construction, a jury found literal infringement and willful infringement and awarded damages.
- The district court entered judgment for Acumed, denied Stryker’s JMOL motion, and issued a permanent injunction against Stryker’s U.S. sales of the accused product.
- On appeal, Stryker challenged claim constructions (including “curved shank” and “transverse holes”), the sufficiency of evidence on literal infringement and willfulness, damages rulings, and the injunction in light of intervening Supreme Court authority requiring the traditional equitable test for injunctions.

## Issues

1. Whether “curved shank” was properly construed to mean a shank with a bend or deviation from a straight line without sharp corners or angles, rather than being limited to a particular curvature described in the specification.
2. Whether “transverse holes” was properly construed as holes across the butt portion of the nail, rather than requiring holes perpendicular to the nail’s longitudinal axis.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of literal infringement under the court’s constructions.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of willful infringement.
5. Whether the permanent injunction could stand where the district court applied a general rule favoring injunctions after findings of infringement and validity, rather than the four-factor equitable test.

## Decision

- Affirmed the district court’s claim constructions of “curved shank” and “transverse holes.”
- Affirmed the jury’s verdict of literal infringement as supported by substantial evidence, including expert testimony that the accused product met the construed limitations.
- Affirmed the willfulness verdict as supported by substantial evidence, including evidence that Stryker proceeded with U.S. sales despite advice indicating a risk of infringement and that the jury could find unreasonable reliance on counsel.
- Affirmed the judgment as to infringement, willfulness, and damages.
- Vacated the permanent injunction and remanded for reconsideration of injunctive relief under the traditional four-factor test for permanent injunctions.

## Legal Principles

- Claim terms are generally given their ordinary meaning in view of the intrinsic record; absent clear intent to limit, courts should not import limitations from preferred embodiments into the claims.
- “Curved” does not necessarily require a specific radius or degree of curvature unless the intrinsic evidence clearly restricts the term.
- “Transverse” generally means “across” and does not inherently require perfect perpendicularity; descriptive statements in the specification do not, by themselves, narrow claim scope.
- Literal infringement is a fact question reviewed for substantial evidence when tried to a jury; the verdict stands if a reasonable jury could reach it on the record.
- A willfulness finding may be upheld where the record supports that the infringer acted despite a known risk of infringement and the factfinder could view reliance on counsel as unreasonable.
- Permanent injunctions in patent cases require application of the traditional equitable four-factor test; categorical rules favoring injunctions upon findings of infringement and validity are improper.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld the infringement, willfulness, and damages judgment based on claim constructions that refused to confine the claims to a preferred embodiment, but vacated the permanent injunction because injunctive relief must be reassessed under the traditional four-factor equitable test.


Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)