IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Mass.: Maquet secures partial summary judgment in infringement suit against Abiomed; key invalidity defenses proceed, (May 5, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Factual disputes over whether the patent’s broad claims were supported by a cable-driven specification required trial on written description and enablement.

A federal district court in Massachusetts has granted in part, denied in part, and dismissed in part a motion for partial summary judgment on invalidity defenses filed by the patentee, Maquet Cardiovascular LLC, in its patent infringement lawsuit against Abiomed, Inc., holding that indefiniteness challenges failed as a matter of law, while defenses based on lack of written description and enablement must proceed to trial. The court found that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the specification of the asserted patent adequately supported the full scope of the claimed “intravascular blood pump,” particularly where the disclosure was limited to cable-driven embodiments but the claims arguably encompassed internally powered pumps (Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc., No. 1:17-cv-12311-FDS (D. Mass. May 1, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Maquet Cardiovascular LLC, is a medical device company engaged in developing cardiovascular support technologies, including intravascular blood pump systems. The defendants, Abiomed, Inc. and related entities, operate in the same sector and are known for manufacturing minimally invasive heart pump devices, including the Impella line of products.

The dispute centered on U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783 (the ’783 patent), which covers intravascular blood pump systems designed to be guided into a patient’s circulatory system to provide cardiac support. The patent claims a system comprising key structural components, including a rotor, a shroud, a cannula, and a guide mechanism. Independent claims 1 and 24 broadly recite an “intravascular blood pump,” while dependent claims further include limitations such as an “elongate catheter extending proximally” relative to the pump.

Maquet filed suit alleging that Abiomed’s Impella devices infringed the ’783 patent. Abiomed responded with counterclaims for declaratory judgment of noninfringement and asserted multiple invalidity defenses under 35 U.S.C. § 112, including lack of written description, lack of enablement, and indefiniteness. Maquet moved for partial summary judgment to eliminate these defenses, arguing that the patent sufficiently disclosed the claimed invention and that the challenged claim terms were definite. Abiomed opposed the motion, contending that the patent impermissibly claimed a broad genus of intravascular blood pumps without adequately describing or enabling all embodiments, particularly those using internal motor systems rather than cable-driven mechanisms.

Written description. The court denied summary judgment on the written description defense, finding that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the patent failed to demonstrate possession of the full scope of the claimed invention. Relying on Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the court reiterated that the specification must reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the claimed invention as of the filing date.

Abiomed argued that the claims covered a genus of intravascular blood pumps, including both cable-driven and internally powered pumps, while the specification disclosed only cable-driven embodiments. The court found that this raised a triable issue under the genus-species framework articulated in Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which requires disclosure of representative species or common structural features sufficient to support the claimed genus.

The court further observed that the specification repeatedly described cable-driven systems and emphasized the role of the drive cable in overcoming known difficulties in guiding the pump within the circulatory system. This evidence, including expert testimony, could support a finding that the drive mechanism was not merely an unclaimed feature but a critical aspect of the invention.

Additionally, the court considered whether the case fell within the line of precedents such as ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc., 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005), where claims were invalidated because a narrow specification failed to support broader claims. The court concluded that, under either framework, the issue presented factual disputes unsuitable for resolution at the summary judgment stage.

Enablement. The court also denied summary judgment on the enablement defense. It noted that enablement requires that the specification teach a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Here, the court determined that the enablement inquiry substantially overlapped with the written description issue. If the claims were found to encompass internally powered pumps not adequately disclosed in the specification, then the patent might also fail to enable the full scope of the invention. Because factual disputes remained regarding the scope of the claims and the adequacy of the disclosure, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Indefiniteness. In contrast, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Maquet on Abiomed’s indefiniteness challenges. Applying the standard outlined in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014), the court held that the challenged terms provided reasonable certainty to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

As to the term “partially disposed” in claim 24, the court found the issue moot because Abiomed did not intend to pursue the argument at trial. With respect to the phrase “elongate catheter extending proximally with respect to the intravascular blood pump” in claim 3, the court rejected Abiomed’s argument that the term was indefinite due to potential breadth. The court clarified that breadth does not equate to indefiniteness and that the phrase conveyed a sufficiently clear spatial relationship between the catheter and the pump.

Other issues. The court dismissed as moot Abiomed’s written description challenge to the phrase “intravascular blood pump comprising a cannula” after previously striking the underlying expert opinion as untimely.

Outcome. Accordingly, the court dismissed as moot the cannula-related written description defense, granted summary judgment rejecting the indefiniteness defenses, and denied summary judgment on the written description and enablement defenses, allowing those issues to proceed to trial.

The Case is No. 1:17-cv-12311-FDS.

Judge: Saylor, F.

Attorneys: Andrew J. Ligotti (Alston & Bird, LLP) for Maquet Cardiovascular LLC. Adam Steinmetz (Desmarais LLP) for Abiomed Inc.

Companies: Maquet Cardiovascular LLC; Abiomed Inc.

Cases: Patent MassachusettsNews GCNNews