Petition for Inter Partes Review by ClearCorrect Operating, LLC of Align Technology, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 6,699,037 (Final Written Decision)

Defendant: Align Technology, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 28, 2017

Docket: IPR2016-00270

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge James J. Mayberry

December 1, 2015 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

May 23, 2016 – Inter Partes Review Instituted

March 24, 2017 – Final Written Decision finding Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 unpatentable

3D Prosthetics LLC v. Sirona Dental, Inc. (new lawsuit filed)

Defendant: Sirona Dental, inc.

Court: E.D. Tex.

Date: Mar 28, 2017

Docket: 2-17-cv-00233

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

3D Prosthetics LLC has sued Sirona Dental, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,177,034 directed to methods for making prosthetic surfaces.  3D Prosthetics accuses the Sirona Connect (using CEREC AC with Omnicam, CEREC AC with Bluecam or APOLLO DI, and inLab MC X5) of infringing the ‘034 patent.

3D Prosthetics LLC v. Planmeca USA, Inc. (new lawsuit filed)

Defendant: Planmeca USA Inc.

Court: E.D. Tex.

Date: Mar 28, 2017

Docket: 2-17-cv-00232

Judge: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

3D Prosthetics LLC has sued Planmeca USA Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,177,034 directed to methods for making prosthetic surfaces.  3D Prosthetics accuses the Planmeca FIT system of infringing the ‘034 patent.

Barry v. Medtronic, Inc. (inequitable conduct determination)

Defendant: Medtronic, Inc.

Court: E.D. Tex.

Date: Mar 28, 2017

Docket: 1-14-cv-00104

Judge: District Judge Ron Clark

Plaintiff Dr. Mark A. Barry brought suit, asserting that Defendant Medtronic, Inc. indirectly infringed two patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,670,358 and U.S. Patent No. 8,361,121 , which relate to a system and method of aligning spinal vertebrae to correct common spinal deformities like scoliosis.  A jury previously found Medtronic liable for indirectly infringing both patents.  Medtronic had asserted both patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct based on Plaintiff’s purported failure to disclose information to the USPTO.  The court held a bench trial and determined that Medtronic failed to establish both specific intent and but-for materiality.    Because Medtronic could not establish either prong of inequitable conduct under Therasense, the court denied Medtronic’s inequitable conduct counterclaim..

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Medtronic Xomed, Inc. of Neurovision Medical Products, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 8,467,844 (Inter Partes Review Instituted)

Defendant: Neurovision Medical Products, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 27, 2017

Docket: IPR2016-01847

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Meredith C. Petravick

September 19, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

March 23, 2017 — Inter Partes Review Instituted

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Natus Medical Incorporated of Nox Medical Ehf’s U.S. Patent No. 9,059,532 (Petition granted in part and denied in part)

Defendant: Nox Medical Ehf

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 27, 2017

Docket: IPR2016-01822

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Susan L. C. Mitchell

September 15, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

March 23, 2017 – Petition granted in part and denied in part; Inter Partes Review Instituted

Petitions for Inter Partes Review by Abiomed, Inc. of Maquet Cardiovascular LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 9,327,068

Defendant: Maquet Cardiovascular LLC

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 15, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01028; IPR2017-01029

March 11, 2017 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

Petitions for Inter Partes Review by Abiomed, Inc. of Maquet Cardiovascular LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 8,888,728

Defendant: Maquet Cardiovascular LLC

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 15, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01026; IPR2017-01027

March 11, 2017 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. of Four Mile Bay, LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 8,821,582 (Final Written Decision)

Defendant: Four Mile Bay, LLC

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 15, 2017

Docket: IPR2016-00012

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Richard E. Rice

October 2, 2015 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

April 1, 2016 – Inter Partes Review Instituted

March 10, 2017 – Final Written Decision finding Claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–15, and 17–20 unpatentable

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Abiomed, Inc. of Maquet Cardiovascular LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 7,022,100

Defendant: Maquet Cardiovascular LLC

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 15, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01025

March 11, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by ResMed Limited of Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited’s U.S. Patent No. 8,186,345 (Inter Partes Review denied)

Defendant: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 13, 2017

Docket: IPR2016-01723

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Thomas L. Giannetti

September 7, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

March 9, 2017 – Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-01726, denied

Petitions for Inter Partes Review by ResMed Limited of Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited’s U.S. Patent No. 8,443,807

Defendant: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 08, 2017

Docket: IPR2016-01726; IPR2016-01734

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Richard E. Rice

September 7, 2016 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

March 6, 2017 – Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-01726, denied

Petition for Inter Partes Review by American Orthodontics Corporation of Dentsply Sirona Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 6,276,930 (Petition granted in part and denied in part)

Defendant: Dentsply Sirona Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 06, 2017

Docket: IPR2016-01652

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge James A. Tartal

August 19, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

February 27, 2017 – Petition granted in part and denied in part; Inter Partes Review Instituted

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. of Tilak M. Shah’s U.S. Patent No. 6,712,832

Defendant: Tilak M. Shah

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 06, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01023

March 3, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Pain Point Medical Systems Inc. of Blephex LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 9,039,718 (Petition granted in part and denied in part)

Defendant: Blephex LLC

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 03, 2017

Docket: IPR2016-01670

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Scott A. Daniels

August 24, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

March 1, 2017 — Petition granted in part and denied in part; Inter Partes Review Instituted

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Smith & Nephew, Inc. of ConforMIS, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 8,657,827

Defendant: ConforMIS, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 01, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-00984

February 28, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Smith & Nephew, Inc. of ConforMIS, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 8,657,827

Defendant: ConforMIS, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 01, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-00983

February 28, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Alcon Labs. Inc. (Claim Construction)

Defendant: Alcon Labs. Inc.

Court: District of Delaware

Date: Feb 24, 2017

Docket: 1-15-cv-00525

Judge: District Judge Sue L. Robinson

Judge Robinson in the District of Delaware construed 5 terms in U.S. Patent No. 7,077,848.

  • Entry alignment devices(s): device(s) that forms or provides an aperture through multiples structures of the eye and keeps these apertures aligned during the surgical procedure
  • Entry Aperture: the openings aligned and maintained by the entry alignment device from the exterior to the interior of the eye through which surgical instruments can be inserted and removed.
  • Entry alignment device that is configured so as to provide an entry aperture in each of the conjunctiva and sclera of the eye: no separate construction
  • Inserting the entry alignment device into the eye so as to form the entry apertures: passing the device through each of the conjunctive and sclera to the interior of the eye so as to form the entry aperture(s)
  • Without pulling back the conjunctiva: without cutting and retracting the conjunctiva to expose the sclera.

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Instradent USA, Inc. of Nobel Biocare Services AG’s U.S. Patent No. 8,714,977 (Final Written Decision)

Defendant: Nobel Biocare Services AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Feb 21, 2017

Docket: IPR2015-01786

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Christopher G. Paulraj

August 20, 2015 – Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

February 19, 2016 – Inter Partes Review Instituted

February 15, 2017 – Final Written Decision finding claims 1–5 and 19 unpatentable, and claim 20 not unpatentable

Petitions for Inter Partes Review by Varian Medical Systems, Inc. of Elekta Ltd.’s U.S. Patent No. 7,961,843

Defendant: Elekta Ltd.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Feb 13, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-00884, IPR2017-00885

February 10, 2017 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed