Released on = February 9, 2007, 12:31 pm

Press Release Author = InteliFUSE, Inc.

Industry = Small Business

Press Release Summary = Following a Markman hearing in the patent infringement suit
brought by InteliFUSE, Inc. against Biomedical Enterprises, Inc., the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a ruling that claim
constructions of plaintiff InteliFUSE "appropriately construe the disputed claim
terms" and finding that "none of the defendant's (BME) arguments in opposition
warrants rejection of Plaintiff's proposed constructions."

Press Release Body = New York-- Following a Markman hearing in the patent
infringement suit brought by InteliFUSE, Inc. against Biomedical Enterprises, Inc.,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a ruling
that claim constructions of plaintiff InteliFUSE "appropriately construe the
disputed claim terms" and finding that "none of the defendant\'s (BME) arguments in
opposition warrants rejection of Plaintiff\'s proposed constructions."

US District Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the Memorandum Order on January 25th
after reviewing both parties\' written submissions and counsel arguments during the
Markman hearing last November 20th, rejecting BME\'s contentions that the InteliFUSE
patents for its technology of heat retractable shape memory clamps and heating
devices used in bone fracture fixation and remodeling should be more narrowly
interpreted. A Markman hearing is so named for the Supreme Court 1996 case of
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., which held that matters of patent claim
interpretation are an issue of law for the court and not a question of fact for the
jury.

Judge Swain in her ruling said in part, "It is a bedrock principle of patent law
that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled
the right to exclude." In further explanation, she held, "The intrinsic evidence
here demonstrates that facets of the subject matter claimed by InteliFUSE, and
described and enabled in the specifications, do not define the contours of the
claimed inventions, but instead describe the preferred embodiment of a broader
invention. For example, according to the decision, "BME\'s assertion that the patents
in-suit must be interpreted as limited to clamps composed of nickel-titanium alloy
must therefore be rejected."

According to InteliFUSE CEO Eugene A. ("Chip") Antoine, Jr., "the court\'s decision
sustaining the InteliFUSE view of the breadth of our patent claims is an important
and welcomed event, making proof of BME\'s infringement of the patents that much
more straightforward."

Web Site = http://www.intelifuse.com

Contact Details = Eugene A. Antoine, Jr.||365 Canal Street, Suite 2300||New Orleans
,
70130||$$country||||504-561-1100||c.antoine@intelifuse.com||http://www.intelifuse.com