The court granted in-part Biomet’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  In view of re-examination at the patent office, the court dismissed without prejduice allegations relating to claims 1, 2, 5-13, 21-30, 32, 41-44, 46, and 48 of U.S. Patent No. 7,344,541 (“Methods and apparatus for femoral and tibial resection”).  The court dismissed with prejudice allegations relating to claims 45 and 47 of the ‘541 patent as directed to ineligible subject matter.  The court also dismissed allegations of direct infringement of claims 31 and 33.

The court summarized the issues remaining in the case: “this case is now limited in scope to Puget’s allegations that Biomet willfully induced and contributed to the infringement of claims 31 and 33 of the ‘541 patent.”

The court issued an omnibus order addressing several pending motions for summary judgment and motions in limine.  The rulings on the summary judgment motions are noted below.

1. The court denied AngioDynamics motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 8,805,478;
2. The court denied CR Bard’s motion for summary judgment of infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 8,475,417;
3. The court denied CR Bard’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims are enabled and not-anticipated;
4. The court denied CR Bard’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101;
5. The court denied AngioDynamics motion for summary judgment of invalidity;

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 5,560,360.