Federal Circuit IP
Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp.
Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., No. 2024-1145, 2025 WL 2999367
(Fed. Cir. Oct. 27, 2025) (Reyna, Prost, and Chen)
Issues:
Whether the district court correctly construed the “outer frame” recited in the claims as a “self-expanding outer frame,” and whether Aortic’s judicial estoppel argument was forfeited.
Facts / Procedural Posture:
Aortic asserted four patents related to transcatheter aortic valve devices, each claiming a valve assembly with an “outer frame” and “inner frame.” In the district court, the parties stipulated to non-infringement based on the district court’s claim construction equating “outer frame” to “self-expanding outer frame.” Aortic appealed that construction.
Holdings:
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction of “outer frame” as limited to a self-expanding frame, and therefore affirmed non-infringement. The Federal Circuit also held that Aortic’s judicial estoppel argument was forfeited as it was not raised before the district court.
Reasoning:
The specification used “outer frame,” “self-expanding frame,” and “self-expanding outer frame” interchangeably when describing the same structural component. This usage showed that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer, redefining “outer frame” to require a self-expanding structure.
Regarding the judicial estoppel argument, Aortic failed to develop the argument in its claim construction brief, offering only a cursory assertion that Edwards should not be permitted to advance a construction different from the position it took before the Board. Aortic likewise failed to articulate any judicial estoppel argument during the construction hearing. Therefore, under these circumstances, Aortic’s judicial estoppel argument is deemed not having been raised before the District Court.
Key Takeaways:
- Interchangeable use of terms in a specification can amount to lexicography, overriding plain meaning.
- Patent drafters should avoid using different terms to describe the same structure unless narrowing is intended.
- Patent litigators should develop all arguments in their briefs.