Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Last week, the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2001.OPINION.3-6-2026_2657508.pdf"><em>Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc.</em>, No. 2024-2001 (March 6, 2026)</a>, affirming the district court’s claim “means-plus-function” claim construction ruling on one of the asserted patents, as well as the grant of Kurin’s post-trial motion for JMOL of noninfringement on the other asserted patent, based on a claim construction not presented to the jury.

core/paragraph

Magnolia Medical sued Kurin for infringement of two patents claiming improvements to the accuracy of blood tests, and specifically devices that counter the problem of contamination. The district court construed one patent to include a means-plus-function limitation, which rendered the accused product noninfringing.

The case proceeded to trial on the second patent, resulting in a jury verdict of infringement. After trial, Kurin filed a motion for JMOL of noninfringement as to the second patent, which was granted by the district court. In granting the motion, the district court addressed two limitations, “vent” and “seal,” that had been submitted to the jury as “plain and ordinary meaning.” In its decision, the court construed them as requiring separate structures. Magnolia Medical cried foul because the “new” claim construction came after the jury trial had concluded. On appeal, Magnolia Medical also challenged the “means-plus-function” construction for the first patent.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. As to the JMOL “vent” and “seal” construction, the Court noted that the district court adopted only a “permissible clarification” of “what was inherent” in the plain and ordinary meaning, which required separately listed limitations to be provided by separate structures, and under which no infringement could be found. Thus, this clarification did not run afoul of the rule against adopting a materially different claim construction at JMOL.

As to the means-plus-function issue, the term at issue was “diverter,” and the claim recited no structure to perform the diverting function. Thus, the Court agreed with the district court’s holding that this must be a means-plus-function limitation.

CAFC Affirms Claim Construction Ruling and Grant of JMOL of Noninfringement in Blood Test Litigation

Related Professionals