Showing all posts written by Callie Sand
Acumed LLC recently sued Skeletal Dynamics LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Acumed’s complaint alleges that Skeletal Dynamics’s REDUCT Headless Compression Screw infringes one of Acumed’s patents. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,030,162 (the ‘162 Patent), titled “Axial Tension Screw,” issued on February 29, 2000. The ‘162 Patent contains 78 claims, 6 of which are independent. In its complaint, Acumed did not identify which claims it asserts Skeletal Dynamics infringes; rather, it merely alleges that “Skeletal Dynamics has infringed and is infringing the ‘162 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Skeletal Dynamics REDUCT Headless Compression Screws.”
The ‘162 Patent’s abstract states that the patent relates to: “A screw having a root and threads formed on the root. The screw is configured to generate and/or maintain axial compression between threads formed in leading and trailing sections of the screw either by virtue of pitch differential in the threads or the way in which the screw is installed.” Figure 1 of the ‘162 Patent is shown to the right.
A screenshot from Skeletal Dynamics’s REDUCT YouTube video is shown to the left. The video was published on September 3, 2015, shortly after Acumed filed suit, and states in its description that the REDUCT Headless Compression Screw is “[t]he first headless compression screw that allows for controlled compression using a proprietary “clutch” that is incorporated into the screw design.”
According to its website, Acumed is headquartered in Hillsboro, Oregon and develops orthopedic implants and surgical devices. Miami, Florida-based Skeletal Dynamics describes itself as being focused on designing innovative solutions that have not been addressed by other manufacturers.
Allergan recently announced that it has agreed to buy Oculeve in an all-cash transaction. The deal is expected to close in the third quarter of 2015. Press releases state that Allergan will pay Oculeve $125 million upfront, and that Allergan will also pay Oculeve additional commercial milestone payments that are related to Oculeve’s lead development project.
According to press releases, Oculeve is a development-stage medical device company focused on developing novel treatments for dry eye disease. The press releases note that Oculeve was founded out of a collaboration with the Stanford Biodesign Center and Department of Ophthalmology at Stanford University. The press releases further state that Oculeve’s lead development project, OD-01, is a non-invasive nasal neurostimulation device that increases tear production in patients with chronic dry eye; Oculeve has already completed four clinical studies showing positive safety and efficacy of the product; Allergan plans to complete an additional two studies before submitting the product to the FDA; and that Allergan and Oculeve hope to commercially launch OD-01 in 2017.
According to its website, Allergan is a leading global pharmaceutical company with commercial operations in approximately 100 countries. According to Allergan, the company is focused on developing branded pharmaceuticals, high-quality generic and over-the-counter medicines and biologic products for patients around the world.
Boston Scientific filed two petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on May 14, 2015 requesting inter partes review of Nevro’s U.S. Patent No. 8,359,102. The petitions were assigned Case Nos. IPR2015-01203 and IPR2015-01204. The ‘102 Patent, which is entitled “Selective High Frequency Spinal Cord Modulation for Inhibiting Pain with Reduced Side Effects, and Associated Systems and Methods,” issued on January 22, 2013. Figure 1 of the ‘102 Patent is shown below.
The first petition seeks review of Claims 1, 2, 11-15, 17-23, 25, and 26 of the ‘102 Patent as obvious based on six different grounds: 1) Claims 1, 2, 11-14, 17-22, 25, and 26 were challenged as being anticipated by MacDonald (U.S. Pat. No. 5,776,170); 2) Claims 1, 2, 15, 17-18, and 25-26 were challenged as being anticipated by Sluijter (U.S. Pat. No. 6,246,912); 3) Claims 1, 2, 17-23, 25 and 26 were challenged as being anticipated by Royle (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0009820); 4) Claims 1, 2, 11-15, 17-23, 25, and 26 were challenged as being obvious over MacDonald, either alone or in view of De Ridder (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0184488), Sluijter, and/or Royle; 5) Claims 1, 2, 11-15, 17-23, 25, and 26 were challenged as being obvious over Sluijter, either alone or in view of De Ridder, MacDonald and/or Royle; and 6) Claims 1, 2, 11-15, 17-23, 25, and 26 were challenged as being obvious over Royle, either alone or in view of De Ridder, MacDonald and/or Sluijter.
The second petition seeks review of the same claims, though on only two different grounds: 1) Claims 1, 2, 17-22, 25, and 26 were challenged as being anticipated by Knudson (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0073354); and 2) Claims 1, 2, 11-15, 17-23, 25, and 26 were challenged as being obvious over Knudson either alone or in view of De Ridder and/or MacDonald.
The petitions state that there is no related litigation.
Days before Boston Scientific filed the petitions, Nevro announced that its Senza spinal cord stimulation system received FDA approval. Nevro states that it “intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property in this matter.”
Spineology, Inc. sued Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (Wright Medical) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota . Spineology’s complaint alleges that Wright Medical’s X-REAM percutaneous expandable reamer infringes one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. RE42,757 (the ‘757 patent), which is entitled “Expandable Reamer” and was reissued on September 27, 2011. The suit includes claims for direct, induced, contributory, and willful infringement.
In support of its claim of willful infringement, Spineology alleges that it sold fifty of its own expandable reamers to Wright Medical in 2006, but did not convey any license to the ‘757 patent along with that sale. The complaint states that Spineology sent a cease-and-desist letter in 2014, which attached the ‘757 patent, requesting that Wright Medical stop selling its X-REAM product because the product was covered by the ‘757 patent. After Wright Medical continued selling its product, Spineology filed the current suit.
According to its website, Minnesota-based Spineology is focused on developing methods and products that not only treat spinal ailments, but also reduce the invasiveness of spine surgery for patients, aid the surgeon in overcoming the hurdles of minimally invasive surgery, and minimize the burden of healthcare expense.
According to its website, Tennessee-based Wright Medical is a specialty orthopaedic company that provides extremity and biologic solutions that enable clinicians to alleviate pain and restore their patients’ lifestyles.
Stryker Corp. and Stryker Sales Corp. sued Zimmer, Inc. and Zimmer Surgical, Inc. in the Western District of Michigan on November 21, 2014. In its complaint, Stryker alleges that Zimmer’s “TotalShield Surgical Helmet System“ infringes four of Stryker’s patents related to personal protection systems for use in surgical environments: U.S. Patent No. 6,622,311, which issued in 2003; U.S. Patent No. 6,481,019, which issued in 2002; U.S. Patent No. 7,752,682, which issued in 2010; and U.S. Patent No. 8,282,234, which issued in 2012. A figure from U.S. Patent No. 6,481,019 is shown below.
Stryker seeks damages and an injunction preventing Zimmer from selling any infringing personal protection system products.
Accordining to its website, Plaintiffs Stryker and Stryker Sales are Michigan corporations based out of Kalamazoo, Michigan. According to Zimmer’s website, Defendants Zimmer and Zimmer Surgical are based in Indiana and Ohio, respectively.