United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ABIOMED INC., ABIOMED R&D, INC., ABIOMED EUROPE GMBH, Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2023-2045 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 1:17-cv-12311-FDS, Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV. ______________________

Decided: March 21, 2025 ______________________

KIRK T. BRADLEY, Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by NICHOLAS CHRISTOPHER MARAIS; CHRISTOPHER L. MCARDLE, WADE G. PERRIN, New York, NY.

KEITH HUMMEL, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellees. Also repre- sented by SHARONMOYEE GOSWAMI, ANDREI HARASYMIAK, LAUREN MOSKOWITZ. ______________________ Case: 23-2045 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 03/21/2025

2 MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR LLC v. ABIOMED INC.

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. REYNA, Circuit Judge. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC appeals a judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Massa- chusetts that appellees Abiomed Inc., Abiomed R&D, Inc., and Abiomed Europe GmbH do not infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783. Maquet does not challenge the district court’s judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,789,238. Below, the district court entered final judgment based on the parties’ stipulation of non-infringement in light of the district court’s construction of certain claims of the ’783 patent. Because we determine that the district court mis- construed the claim terms at issue, we reject its construc- tions, vacate, and remand as to the ’783 patent. We leave the judgment as to the ’238 patent undisturbed. BACKGROUND I Appellant Maquet Cardiovascular LLC (“Maquet”) owns U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783 (“’783 patent”). This pa- tent relates to an intravascular blood pump system for de- ploying a blood pump to a desired location in a patient’s circulatory system. See, e.g., J.A. 130, 1:29–33. The ’783 patent explains that prior art pumps were “difficult to guide into the appropriate position within the circulatory system of a patient.” Id. at 2:20–25. This was in part be- cause the patient’s blood pump was guided by “supple- mental guiding mechanisms,” such as a separate, large diameter guide catheter, that were “incapable of providing the degree of control necessary to easily negotiate the pump through the tortuous pathways leading up to and into the heart.” See id. at 2:25–37; 3:1–3. Such catheters were also disadvantageous because they consumed valua- ble space within the vessels. Id. at 2:45–55. Case: 23-2045 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 03/21/2025

MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR LLC v. ABIOMED INC. 3

The ’783 patent sought to improve intravascular pump systems by eliminating the need for supplemental guide mechanisms by employing “integrated guide mechanisms” that are located on the device itself. J.A. 130, 1:31–33; id. at 2:35–37; id. at 2:62–66. The ’783 patent discloses three examples of such integrated guide mechanisms. The first is an “over-the-wire” type guide mechanism where a “cen- tral lumen is formed through at least a portion of the intra- vascular blood pump system such that a guide element, such as a guide wire, may be progressed therethrough and advanced to the predetermined location in the circulatory system of the patient.” J.A. 131, 3:7–14. The second is a “side-rigger” or “rapid exchange” type guide mechanism, in which “a side l