CAFC reverses ND Cal in Nevro

Of error:



Accordingly, we hold the district court erred in holding
invalid as indefinite the “paresthesia-free” system and device terms,
and we construe “paresthesia-free” in accordance with the plain language of the claims and
specification to mean that the therapy or therapy signal
“does not produce a sensation usually described as
tingling, pins and needles, or numbness.” See, e.g., ’472
patent at 1:62–66.

{...}

Accordingly, we conclude the district court erred
in holding indefinite the claims reciting the term “configured to”
and we construe “configured to” to mean “programmed to.”

(...)

We hold that the district court erred in holding
indefinite claims 18, 34 and 55 of the ’125 patent. We construe the
claim term “means for generating” as a meansplus-function term, having a function of “generating” and a
structure of “a signal/pulse generator configured to generate” the claimed signals.





The outcome:


We have considered the parties remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
vacate and remand the district court’s judgment of invalidity as to claims 7, 12, 35, 37 and 58 of the ’533 patent,
claims 18, 34 and 55 of the ’125 patent, claims 5 and 34 of
the ’357 patent and claims 1 and 22 of the ’842 patent.