lawsuit news
biz.yahoo.com
QUEENSBURY, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 17, 2005--AngioDynamics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ANGO - News) today announced an update regarding developments in the lawsuit between Diomed Inc. and AngioDynamics, Inc.
In January 2004, Diomed, Inc., a subsidiary of Diomed Holdings, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the Company in the federal district court in Massachusetts, alleging patent infringement related to AngioDynamics' endovascular laser venous system. This system is used for the treatment of severe varicose veins.
The suit involves a single U.S. patent, Number 6,398,777 (the '777 patent), covering a specific method of endovascular laser treatment of varicose veins.
The Markman proceeding, a hearing for each party to present its claim construction interpretation was held in the Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse on Thursday March 17, 2005. Claim Interpretation is a preliminary step in the litigation process whereby the court determines the proper scope of the asserted patent's claims. During the Markman proceeding AngioDynamics' attorneys briefed the court on the claim interpretation issues, which highlighted the differences between the AngioDynamics' product and the methods claimed by Diomed's '777 patent.
AngioDynamics expects Judge Richard G. Stearns to issue the claim interpretation ruling within approximately 1 month. This ruling will set the definition of the disputed clauses in each asserted claim. The court's claim interpretation will be used to assess the issues of alleged patent infringement and invalidity during the remainder of the litigation. Based on today's hearing AngioDynamics is confident that the claim interpretation position presented by its attorneys supports its position of non-infringement and patent invalidity.
"The Company has analyzed the Diomed patent, and has a written opinion of non-infringement from outside patent counsel," said Eamonn Hobbs, president and chief executive officer of AngioDynamics. "We believe our Venacure(TM) product does not infringe the Diomed patent. We also strongly believe that Diomed's patent is invalid, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend this action." |
