-
Consistent And Interchangeable Use Of Terms Leads To Implicit Lexicographic Definition
11/04/2025In an October 27, 2025 precedential opinion, Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., No. 2024-1145, the Federal Circuit affirmed a stipulated judgment of non-infringement in favor of Edwards Lifesciences (“Edwards”) based on the district court’s construction of the term “outer frame” in Aortic Innovations’ (“Aortic”) transcatheter aortic valve replacement device patents.
Aortic asserted a family of four related patents directed to transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices. The patents share a common specification that discloses two device categories: endograft devices and transcatheter valves. The asserted claims at issue are directed to dual-frame transcatheter valves featuring an “outer frame” and an “inner frame.” The specification further discloses two categories of embodiments: 1) a serial frame wherein a self-expanding frame and balloon-expandable frame attach at a meeting point, and 2) a dual-frame wherein an inner frame sits within an outer one.
Aortic asserted their patents against Edwards’ SAPIEN 3 Ultra valve, which utilizes a single, balloon-expandable frame. The district court found that the patentee had acted as its own lexicographer, defining the term “outer frame” to mean “self-expanding outer frame” through its consistent and interchangeable use of “outer frame,” and “self-expanding frame” to refer to the same structure. Accordingly, the parties stipulated to non-infringement based on this construction, which Aortic appealed.
The Federal Circuit rejected Aortic’s contention that “outer frame” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Although the Court acknowledged the high bar for an implicit definition, the consistent and clear interchangeable use of “outer frame,” “self-expanding frame,” and “self-expanding outer frame” in Aortic’s specification, to describe the same structure, equates the terms. Further, although the specification limits the presence of several features using “[i]n some embodiments” language, the “self-expanding frame” is not so limited. Additionally, when the specification discusses various dual-frame embodiments, the outer frame is consistently depicted or described with an outer self-expanding frame. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand all embodiments to contain a self-expanding outer frame.
The Court also rejected Aortic’s secondary argument that Edwards should be judicially estopped from arguing a construction other than the plain and ordinary meaning based on its prior representations during an inter partes review. The Court agreed with Edwards that Aortic had forfeited its judicial estoppel argument by only briefly noting it in its responsive claim construction brief and by failing to develop the argument any further, including when the matter was raised at the claim construction hearing.
