Arbmetrics, LLC v. Dexcom, Inc. (New Lawsuit Filed)

Defendant: Dexcom, Inc.

Court: S.D. Cal.

Date: Jan 22, 2018

Docket: 3-18-cv-00134

Judge: Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford; District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel; District Judge Janis L. Sammartino

Arbmetrics, LLC has sued Dexcom, Inc. in the Southern District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,343,225, entitled “Implantable glucose sensor.”  Arbmetrics accuses the Dexcom Seven®  Plus CGM Sensor, G4® PLATINUM CGM Sensor, and G5® Mobile CGM Sensor continuous glucose monitoring (“CGM”) products of infringing the patent-at-issue.

Petition for Inter Partes Review by CareFusion Corporation of Baxter International, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 5,764,034 (Final Written Decision)

Defendant: Baxter International, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jan 22, 2018

Docket: IPR2016-01460

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Amanda F. Wieker

July 19, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

February 6, 2017 – Petition granted in part and denied in part; Inter Partes Review Instituted

January 17, 2018 — Final Written Decisions finding claims 1–4 unpatentable

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Becton, Dickinson and Co. of B. Braun Melsungen AG’s U.S. Patent No. 9,370,641 (Inter Partes Review Instituted)

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jan 22, 2018

Docket: IPR2017-01590

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Scott A. Daniels

June 16, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

January 11, 2018 — Inter Partes Review Instituted

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Becton, Dickinson and Co. of B. Braun Melsungen AG’s U.S. Patent No. 8,597,249 (Inter Partes Review Instituted)

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jan 22, 2018

Docket: IPR2017-01589

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Robert L Kinder

June 16, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

January 12, 2018 — Inter Partes Review Instituted

Sanofi-Aventis US LLC et al. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Claim Construction)

Defendant: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

Court: District of Delaware

Date: Jan 19, 2018

Docket: 1-16-cv-00812

Judge: Judge Richard G. Andrews

The Court in Sanofi-Aventis US LLC et al. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. construed terms of the following U.S. Patents.  The Court’s constructions can be found in the attached order.

  1. 1 term of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652 (entitled “Acidic insulin preparations having improved stability”)
  2. 1 term of U.S. Patent No. 7,713,930 (entitled “Acidic insulin preparations having improved stability”)
  3. 4 terms of U.S. Patent No. 8,603,044 (entitled “Pen-type injector”)
  4. 4 terms of U.S. Patent No. 8,679,069 (entitled “Pen-type injector”)
  5. 4 terms of U.S. Patent No. 8,992,486 (entitled “Pen-type injector”)
  6. 4 terms of U.S. Patent No. 9,457,152 (entitled “Drive mechanism for a medication delivery device and medication delivery device”)
  7. 4 terms of U.S. Patent No. 9,526,844 (entitled “Pen-type injector”)
  8. 5 terms of U.S. Patent No. 9,533,105 (entitled “Drive mechanisms suitable for use in drug delivery devices”)
  9. 4 terms of U.S. Patent No. 9,592,348 (entitled “Assembly for a drug delivery device and drug delivery device”)
  10. 5 terms of U.S. Patent No. 9,604,008 (entitled “Drive mechanisms suitable for use in drug delivery devices”)

B. Braun Melsungen AG et al. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company et al. (Partial Final Judgment)

Defendant: Becton, Dickinson and Company; Becton, Dickinson Infusion Therapy Systems Inc.

Court: District of Delaware

Date: Jan 18, 2018

Docket: 1-16-cv-00411

Judge: Judge Richard G. Andrews

The Court in B. Braun Melsungen AG et al. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company et al. entered a partial final judgment of non-infringement of seven patents in light of the Court’s construction of the term “needle protective device.”  The final judgment states that Becton Dickinson’s Insyte Autoguard BC product is adjudged to not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,333,735, 8,540,728, 8,337,463, 8,328,762, 9,149,626, 8,460,247, and 8,597,249.  The order also notes that the remainder of the case will be stayed pending the resolution of ongoing IPR proceedings.

W.D. Manor Mechanical Contractors Inc. v. MIFAB Inc. (Amended Complaint)

Defendant: MIFAB Inc.

Court: N.D. Ill.

Date: Jan 17, 2018

Docket: 1-17-cv-05164

Judge: Judge Andrea R. Wood

W.D. Manor Mechanical Contractors Inc. filed an amended complaint in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that MIFAB Inc. also infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,827,363 (“Dialysis service box”).  W.D. Manor accuses MIFAB’s MI-DIAL-FRP-MR supply and waste dialysis box product of infringing the ‘363 patent.

W.D. Manor had previously accused MIFAB Inc. of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,834,718.

Baxter Healthcare Corporation et al. v. B. Braun Medical Inc. et al. (New Lawsuit Filed)

Defendant: B. Braun Avitum AG; B. Braun Medical Inc.

Court: E.D. Pa.

Date: Jan 17, 2018

Docket: 5-18-cv-00163

Judge: Jeffrey L. Schmehl

Baxter Healthcare Corp. has sued B. Braun Medical Inc. and B. Braun Avitum AG in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for infringement of the following U.S. patents.

  1. U.S. Patent No. 6,887,214 (“Blood pump having a disposable blood passage cartridge with integrated pressure sensors”)
  2. U.S. Patent No. 7,232,418 (“Support element, an integrated module for extracorporeal blood treatment comprising the support element, an apparatus for extracorporeal blood treatment equipped with the integrated module, and an assembly process for an integrated module for extracorporeal blood treatment”)
  3. U.S. Patent No. 7,314,554 (“Extracorporeal blood treatment machine”)
  4. U.S. Patent No. 7,727,391 (“Extracorporeal blood treatment machine”)
  5. U.S. Patent No. 7,867,393 (“Integrated module for blood treatment”)
  6. U.S. Patent No. 8,267,308 (“Fluid processing medical apparatus and method for setting-up a fluid processing medical apparatus”)
  7. U.S. Patent No. 8,459,543 (“Fluid processing medical apparatus and method for setting-up a fluid processing medical apparatus”)

Baxter alleges that B. Braun’s OMNI® continuous renal replacement therapy machine infringes the patents-in-suit.

Strategic Operations, Inc. v. Syndaver Labs, Inc. et al. (New Lawsuit Filed)

Defendant: Syndaver Labs, Inc.

Court: S.D. Cal.

Date: Jan 17, 2018

Docket: 3-18-cv-00087

Judge: Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel; Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt

Strategic Operations, Inc. has sued Syndaver Labs, Inc. in the Southern District of California for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,840,403 and 9,336,693, entitled “Wearable partial task surgical simulator.”  Strategic Operations, Inc. alleges that Syndaver Labs’ SOF Suit product infringes the patents-in-suit.

Lecat’s Ventriloscope v. MT Tool and Manufacturing (Claim Construction)

Defendant: MT Tool and Manufacturing

Court: N.D. Ill.

Date: Jan 16, 2018

Docket: 1-16-cv-05298

Judge: Judge Ruben Castillo

The Court in Lecat’s Ventriloscope v. MT Tool and Manufacturing construed five terms of U.S. Patent No. 7,645,141, entitled “Arrangement for auscultation training.”  The Court’s constructions can be found in the attached order.

MiMedx Group, Inc. v. Liventa Bioscience, Inc. et al. (Final Judgment)

Defendant: Liventa Bioscience, Inc., Medline Industries Inc., Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation

Court: N.D. Ga.

Date: Jan 16, 2018

Docket: 1:14-cv-01178

Judge: Judge Mark H. Cohen

The Court in MiMedx Group, Inc. v. Liventa Bioscience, Inc. et al. entered a final judgment pursuant to a settlement between the parties and a final judgment of validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,709,494 (entitled “placental tissue grafts”).

St. Croix Surgical Systems v. Cardinal Health, Inc. (amended complaint)

Defendant: Cardinal Health, Inc.

Court: E.D. Tex.

Date: Jan 10, 2018

Docket: 2-17-cv-00500

Judge: Judge Rodney Gilstrap

St. Croix filed an amended complaint in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Cardinal Health also infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,839,716 (“Method of Closing Wounds”).  St. Croix accuses Cardinal Health’s Minx product family of infringement of the ‘716 Patent.

St. Croix had previously accused Cardinal Health of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,568,448; 8,652,168; and 9,669,131.

Petition for Inter Partes Review by OrthoPediatrics Corp. et al. of K2M, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,532,816

Defendant: K2M, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jan 09, 2018

Docket: IPR2018-00429

January 8, 2018  — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by CareFusion Corporation of Baxter International, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 6,231,560 (Final Written Decision)

Defendant: Baxter International, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jan 05, 2018

Docket: IPR2016-01463

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Richard E. Rice

July 19, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

February 6, 2017 — Petition granted in part and denied in part; Inter Partes Review Instituted

January 2, 2018 — Final Written Decisions finding claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 16 unpatentable

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Becton, Dickinson and Co. of B. Braun Melsungen AG’s U.S. Patent No. 8,460,247 (Inter Partes Review Instituted)

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jan 04, 2018

Docket: IPR2017-01588

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Michael L. Woods

June 16, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

December 21, 2017 — Inter Partes Review Instituted

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc. of Radiometer Medical APS’s U.S. Patent No. 8,728,288

Defendant: Radiometer Medical APS

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Dec 21, 2017

Docket: IPR2018-00311

December 20, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Becton, Dickinson and Co. of B. Braun Melsungen AG’s U.S. Patent No. 8,337,463 (Inter Partes Review Denied)

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Dec 21, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01585

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Scott A. Daniels

June 16, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

December 15, 2017 – Petition for Inter Partes Review Denied

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Minerva Surgical, Inc. of Hologic, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 6,872,183 (Final Written Decision)

Defendant: Hologic, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Dec 21, 2017

Docket: IPR2016-00868

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Meredith C. Petravick

April 11, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

October 6, 2016 — Inter Partes Review Instituted

December 15, 2017 – Final Written Decisions finding claims 1-15 unpatentable

Petition for Inter Partes Review by DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. of MedIdea, LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 6,558,426

Defendant: MedIdea, LLC

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Dec 21, 2017

Docket: IPR2018-00315

December 15, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Propel Orthodontics, LLC of OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,662,184

Defendant: OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Dec 21, 2017

Docket: IPR2018-00296

December 15, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed