One crucial aspect of a current patent infringement lawsuit currently underway in the USA concerns the definition of a flat tip as used in microarray manufacture
In March 2003, Point Technologies was sued by TeleChem International for patent infringement, based on allegations that Point Technologies infringed US Patent 6,101,946.
Point Technologies has consistently stated that these allegations are baseless, and has vigorously defended against TeleChem's claims.
As part of the proceedings in the United States District Court in Oakland, Judge Lowell Jensen held a claims construction hearing (also known as a "Markman hearing") in January 2004 to construe disputed terms, phrases, or clauses in the patent.
Each side submitted proposed definitions for these portions of the patent, and Judge Jensen heard argument concerning the proper construction of the disputed language.
No representative of TeleChem was present at the Hearing but Kirk O'Brien, president of Point Technologies, attended the hearing to better understand the issues.
The transcript of this hearing is public information.
On 25 May Judge Jensen announced and published his decision.
A few days later, TeleChem issued a press release entitled "TeleChem Rolls Towards Patent Victory After Key Markman Ruling".
In that press release, TeleChem characterised the decision as "a highly favorable and decisive step forward in winning the case".
Such a characterisation is creative, says Point Technologies, given the rulings contained in Judge Jensen's decision.
A copy of this decision, together with the transcript of the January 2003 hearing, is available upon request from Point Technologies (use email link provided).
The company says that "both of these public documents show a much different story than TeleChem's selective spin".
It says it offers the documents "as a factual and professional response to TeleChem's desperate misrepresentation of the litigation".
"While each individual can make his or her own judgment, we believe that the Court's decision represents a major defeat for TeleChem".
"Point Technologies is committed to vigorously defending the litigation, and the recent claims construction decision validates our position".
One example relates to TeleChem's contention concerning Claim 1 of the patent, which relates to "A device for printing microarrays comprising: A holder and one or more pins having an exterior sample channel and a flat tip." The meaning of this phrase was hotly contested: TeleChem's recommended construction of flat tip was "a horizontally level surface at an apex that is oriented at about 90 degrees to the centerline of the shaft of the pin - A flat tip need not be flat across the entire distal surface of the pin and the tip may be square or have sharp angles, but is not required to be square or have sharp angles".
Point Technologies's recommended interpretation of flat tip was "a continuous smooth surface on a plane at ninety degrees to the centerline of the pin, without a slope or curvature, square, and with straight, sharply angled edges.
The Judge's definitive construction of flat tip was "a horizontally level surface at an apex oriented at 90 degrees to the centerline of the shaft of the pin, without a slope or curvature and with sharply-angled edges". Obviously, says Point Technologies, the Court's construction substantially adopts the meaning it proposed, and rejects TeleChem's.
This ruing was vital, since the Point Technologies Accelerator Spotting Pins have radiused tips with a slope or curvature, and do not have sharply angled edges.
