Hollister Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., No. 10 C 6431, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2012) (Kennelly, J.).
Judge Kennelly construed the terms in this patent dispute regarding fecal management systems:
- “Passed through” was construed as “passed inside.”
- “An enema one-way valve” was construed as “a device that enables forward fluid flow but prevents backward fluid flow.”
- “An enema fluid one-way valve located over said internal balloon and in the colon” was construed as “the enema fluid one-way valve is located at the patient proximal end of the internal balloon.”
- “An annular supporting plate upwardly disposed” was construed to require that the annular plate was “angled toward the patient proximal end of the multipurpose colostomy device.”
- “For fixing the multipurpose colostomy device to the abdominal wall of the stoma” was construed as “[t]he annular supporting plate attaches the multipurpose colostomy device to the abdomen wall surrounding a surgically constructed opening connected to the colon or ileum.”
- “A joint tube disposed under said connecting tube” was construed as “[a] tube portion disposed under the connecting tube and used to connect to a drainage hose or a collecting container.”
- “The balloon having a proximal-most end coincident to a proximal-most first end of the first catheter section” and “the proximal-most end of the retention balloon is coincident to the proximal-most first end of the patient proximal first section of the waste catheter” were both construed as “[t]he proximal-most end of the retention balloon closest to the patient and the proximal-most end of the first catheter section closest to the patient occupy the same plane in space that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the waste collection catheter, and neither of the proximal-most ends extend[s] axially beyond the other.”
- “Having an inflated size so as to be sufficiently large enough to retain the patient proximal end of the catheter into the patient’s rectum” and related terms were held not to require construction.
- “Ease of insertion” was held not to require construction.
- “Folding” was held not to require construction.
- “Flush port” was held not to require construction. The disputed language only required that the flush port allow or make possible irrigation.