Respironics, Inc. v. Invacare Corp. (Fed. Cir. Jul. 8, 2011) (nonprecedential)
In this case, the Federal Circuit determined that, as it held the two patents in suit were anticipated by a prior art reference, "it is not necessary for us to address Respironics' appeal relating to the construction of 'predetermined,' as the dispute over the construction of that term is relevant only to infringement and not to validity." The patents in suit related to providing "positive pressure support therapy" to patient suffering from sleep apnea, more specifically "a method and a device that reduces the magnitude of the positive pressure that is provided to the patient during the expiratory phase of the breathing cycle as compared to the magnitude of the pressure that is delivered during the inspiratory phase."