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 a decision in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2062.OPINION.7-27-2026_2728460.pdf"><em>Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific Corp.</em>, Nos. 2024-2062, -2063 (July 27, 2026)</a>, reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and holding that U.S. Patent No. 6,596,296 (the “’296 Patent”), owned by the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System (“UT”), is invalid as anticipated and not infringed by Boston Scientific Corporation (“BSC”).

core/paragraph

UT’s ’296 Patent claims compositions containing a biodegradable polymer fiber with two immiscible phases—a polymer phase and a phase containing one or more therapeutic agents—and UT accused BSC’s drug-eluting coronary stents of infringing claims 1, 11, 17, and 26. The district court construed “fiber” to mean “a thread-like structure of any length or shape” and construed the “first phase,” “second phase,” and “immiscible” limitations consistent with the parties’ positions. At trial, the jury found BSC infringed, rejected BSC’s defense that the claims were anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,364,627 (“Song”), found the infringement willful, and awarded UT damages. On post-trial motions, the district court denied BSC’s JMOL motions on invalidity and noninfringement, granted JMOL of no willfulness, and denied UT’s motion to enhance damages. BSC appealed the liability verdict, and UT cross-appealed the willfulness ruling.

The Federal Circuit reversed, holding BSC was entitled to JMOL of anticipation and noninfringement. Song expressly discloses a biodegradable polymer fiber with immiscible polymer and drug phases, and its disclosure that the drug “does not necessarily have to be in a contiguous phase” satisfies the “discrete” second-phase limitation, regardless of UT’s arguments about differences in how the drug is released. Song’s disclosures of “drugs” and “polyglycolic acid” anticipated dependent claims 11 and 17 under the Markush-group rule, and its disclosure of differently sized drug pockets, together with unrebutted expert testimony that all drug-delivery systems have varying release rates, anticipated claim 26.

On noninfringement, the Court held that no reasonable jury could find the “fiber” limitation met because UT relied only on a zigzag-shaped section of coating that exists solely after cutting it from the stent’s frame—a structure the Court held was not reasonably “thread-like.” Because its anticipation and noninfringement rulings resolved the appeal, the Court did not reach BSC’s remaining arguments or UT’s cross-appeal on willfulness, and awarded costs to BSC.

<em>Coauthored by Jeffrey Blake and Ellie Ward</em>

CAFC Reverses Infringement Verdict, Finds Stent Patent Anticipated and Not Infringed

Related Professionals