## Facts

- Diomed, Inc. owned U.S. Patent No. 6,398,777, claiming a method for treating varicose veins using endovenous laser therapy (placing a laser fiber in a vein and delivering energy to collapse the vein).
- Diomed sued AngioDynamics, Inc., alleging AngioDynamics marketed an endovenous laser system and procedure kits that infringed the patented method.
- AngioDynamics counterclaimed, including antitrust and Massachusetts Chapter 93A claims; those counterclaims were bifurcated and discovery on them stayed pending resolution of infringement and validity.
- AngioDynamics moved for summary judgment that the patent was invalid based on prior art, focusing on a pre-filing video presentation and related materials attributed to Dr. Brunello Puglisi (including an abstract and other documents).
- AngioDynamics also sought summary judgment on inequitable conduct, asserting Diomed failed to disclose material prior art to the PTO with intent to deceive.

## Issues

1. Whether the asserted patent claims were anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by the Puglisi video and related materials, including whether the materials were publicly accessible and disclosed every claim limitation.
2. Whether the asserted patent claims were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Puglisi and other prior art.
3. Whether inequitable conduct could be found on summary judgment based on alleged nondisclosure of prior art, requiring proof of both materiality and intent to deceive.

## Decision

- The court denied, in substantial part, AngioDynamics’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity.
- The court held that genuine disputes of material fact remained as to whether the Puglisi materials qualified as invalidating prior art and whether they disclosed each element of the claimed method as arranged in the claims.
- The court denied summary judgment of obviousness because the record presented fact disputes under the Graham framework, including competing expert testimony on what the prior art taught and whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine teachings to reach the claimed method.
- The court denied summary judgment on inequitable conduct because materiality and, especially, intent to deceive presented disputed factual questions not suitable for resolution on the existing record.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Patent invalidity must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; at summary judgment the movant must show no reasonable factfinder could find the patent valid on the record.
- Anticipation under § 102 requires a single prior-art reference to disclose each and every claim limitation, arranged as in the claim; disputes about what the reference disclosed and how a skilled artisan would understand it can preclude summary judgment.
- Obviousness under § 103 is assessed under the Graham factors and is often fact-intensive, particularly where the parties present conflicting expert evidence on teachings, differences, and motivation to combine.
- Inequitable conduct requires proof of both materiality and intent to deceive the PTO; intent is a fact question and is rarely appropriate for summary judgment when contested.

## Conclusion

The court refused to invalidate the endovenous laser-treatment patent or find inequitable conduct on summary judgment because the parties’ evidence—especially regarding the content and public accessibility of the asserted prior-art video and the inferences about intent—created genuine disputes of material fact requiring trial.


Diomed, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Mass. 2006)