Iridex announces positive ruling in patent litigation

Iridex Corporation announced today that the Court has ruled in favor of Iridexregarding claim construction for thirteen of fourteen patent terms involved in the patent infringement action it brought against Synergetics USA, Inc.

Claim construction is the process in which a judge, during a "Markman" hearing, rules on the interpretation, definition and scope of patent claims which are under dispute in a patent litigation.

The suit, Case Number 05-CV-1916 CDP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, filed on October 19, 2005, alleges that Synergetics infringes Iridex's U.S. Patent No. 5,085,492 entitled "Optical Fiber With Electrical Encoding." This intellectual property is embraced in the IridexEndoProbe products and other Iridexlaser delivery devices.

On July 7, 2006, the Hon. Judge Catherine Perry, United States District Judge, issued her Claim Construction Ruling in which she agreed with Iridexon the meaning of thirteen of the fourteen patent terms at issue. The Court's ruling followed a "Markman" hearing, named after a 1995 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which provides that judges, rather than juries, are to determine the proper interpretation of patent claims.

This is significant because Synergetics tried to use the Markman hearing to narrow Iridex's patent, but Synergetics' arguments were rejected. In particular, the Court confirmed Iridex's position that its patent may cover a two-piece probe connector, such as the one sold by Synergetics. With respect to the fourteenth patent term, the Court's decision split the difference between Iridex's and Synergetics' positions. This portion of the Court's decision is not expected to have any negative effect on Iridex's case.

"Over the years, Iridexhas invested significantly in its intellectual property and we are pleased that the Court recognized the breadth of the Iridexinvention," said Barry G. Caldwell, President and CEO of Iridex. "We are gratified that our belief in the strength of our intellectual property has been validated by the Court's ruling. Naturally, this is but one step in the process, and there is always a risk associated with litigation. Nonetheless, we believe that Synergetics clearly infringes our patent, and this ruling brings us closer to an ultimate resolution."