Showing all posts written by Stephen Larson

Stephen Larson
Stephen Larson
Stephen Larson is a partner in the Orange County office. Mr. Larson represents and counsels clients in a wide variety of intellectual property disputes, specializing in patent litigation relating to the medical device, pharmaceutical, and semiconductor fields.
Click here to read full bio
ResMed Sues APEX Medical for Patent Infringement Relating to Respiratory Masks

ResMed Sues APEX Medical for Patent Infringement Relating to Respiratory Masks

ResMed Incorporated has filed a new lawsuit against APEX Medical Corporation and other defendants.  The lawsuit alleges infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,159,587, entitled “Respiratory Mask Having Gas Washout Vent And Gas Washout Vent Assembly For Respiratory Mask.”

According to the Abstract, the ‘587 Patent relates to “a vent assembly suitable for use with a respiratory mask of the type used in CPAP treatment. In one embodiment the vent is made of a thin air permeable membrane.”  Figure 1 from the ‘587 Patent is shown below:

According to the ‘587 Patent, Figure 1 illustrates a “gas washout vent constituted by an opening 26 in the shell 12 across which extends a thin air permeable membrane 28.”  ‘587 Patent, col. 4, lines 41-43.  The ‘587 Patent states that, “[l]ocating the vent in the mask shell results in an improvement in the minimization of CO2 retention within the mask compared to locating the vent as an inline mask component.”  ‘587 Patent, col. 7, lines 5-7.

ResMed alleges that APEX Medical’s WiZARD branded masks infringe the ‘587 Patent.  The complaint and asserted patents are available here.

New Suit Targets Rex Medical’s Vena Cava Filter

New Suit Targets Rex Medical’s Vena Cava Filter

EVM Systems, LLC has filed a new lawsuit targeting Rex Medical, L.P. and Argon Medical Devices, Inc.  The lawsuit alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,052,670, entitled “Medical Device With Slotted Memory Metal Tube.”  According to the ’670 Patent, the patent “generally relates to an instrument which uses a slotted memory metal tube to perform or assist in various medical procedures.”  ’670 Patent, col. 1, lines 17-19.  Figure 1A from the ’670 Patent is shown below:

According to the ’670 Patent, Figure 1A illustrates a “memory metal tube 11 with four slots 12 near the distal end.  The slots 12 create a balloon-shaped structure which can be used as a retrieval basket for small particles 14, with a closure around the caught particle due to the concave shape of the inner wall of the memory metal tube 11.”  ’670 Patent, col. 3, lines 32-37.

EVM Systems alleges that Rex Medical’s Option™ Vena Cava Filter infringes the ’670 Patent.  EVM Systems is a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation and has sued a number of medical device companies in the past several years, including Boston Scientific, Cordis Corporation, and Abbott Laboratories.  According to the complaint, Rex Medical is based in Pennsylvania, and Rex Medical’s distributor, Argon Medical Devices, is based in Texas.  The complaint and asserted patents are available here.

Back in Five and Infinite Int’l Settle Suit

Back in Five, LLC, has settled its patent infringement lawsuit against Infinite International, Inc.  A consent decree entered in the District Court enjoins Infinite International from manufacturing and selling devices that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,443,916 and 7,179,237, entitled “Device for Preventing or Relieving Pain in the Lower Back”.  The ‘916 and ‘237 patents relate to a device for simultaneously pulling and lifting a user’s lower back:

The consent decree states that the patents are valid and enforceable.  The lawsuit was filed on January 7, 2011, and also asserted claims of trade dress infringement and unfair competition.

New Suit Targets C.R. Bard

C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., are the latest targets of a series of lawsuits brought by LifeScreen Sciences LLC.  LifeScreen filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the District of Delaware on January 30 accusing C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral of patent infringement.  LifeScreen Sciences and LifePort Sciences have recently filed patent infringement suits against Cook, Inc., Cordis Corporation, Medtronic Corp., W.L. Gore & Associates Inc. and Endologix, Inc.

LifeScreen’s latest lawsuit alleges that C.R. Bard’s Meridian vena cava filter infringes several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 6,468,290, entitled “Two-Planar Vena Cava Filter With Self-Centering Capabilities,” which issued in 2002.  The patent relates to a two-plane filter with filter wires with extensions that are applied against the wall of a vein and compel the filter “to adopt a position with its axis generally coincident with the axis of the vein…”   The ‘290 patent was originally assigned to SciMed Life Systems, Inc.

LifeScreen’s other lawsuits have targeted similar technologies.  For example, on January 23, 2013, LifeScreen filed lawsuits in Delaware and Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,214,025, entitled “Self-Centering, Self-Expanding and Retrievable Vena Cava Filter,” a patent originally assigned to Boston Scientific.

The complaint and asserted patents in LifeScreen Sciences v. C.R. Bard are available here.

TP Orthodontics Sues Hangzhou Shinye and Global Orthodontics

TP Orthodontics, Inc. sued Hangzhou Shinye Orthodontic Products and Global Orthodontics in the Northern District of Illinois.  The lawsuit alleges that Hangzhou Shinye’s “Transmission Series Brackets” infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,682,345, entitled “Orthodontic Bracket,” which issued in 2004.  According to the complaint, Hangzhou Shinye is a Chinese corporation, and Global Orthodontics is based in Virginia.  In addition to patent infringement, the lawsuit asserts trademark infringement claims based on the defendants’ alleged use of the mark “TIP-Edge Plus” on their website and in their marketing literature.  In 2011, TP Orthodontics filed suit against Burris Dental Group, P.A. and Hixson-Burris Publishing, LLC for trademark infringement.  The complaint and asserted patents in the TP Orthodontics v. Hangzhou Shinye case are available here.