Acuity Innovation and Design v. Arrowhead Creekside Dental et al (new lawsuit filed)

Defendant: Arrowhead Creek Dental et al

Court: D. Az.

Date: Jun 26, 2017

Docket: 2-17-cv-01986

Judge: Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle

Acuity Innovation and Design LLC has sued Arizona Dental Professionals, PC d/b/a Arrowhead Creekside Dental, T. Phillip Shin, Thomas W. Rogers, and several Doe defendants in the District of Arizona for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,935,862 (“Dental Prosthesis fabrication and placement system and associated methods”).  Acuity contends that a non-party, Rhondium Corporation, manufactures dental implants (Rhondium OVC products) embodying the claims of the ‘862 patent.  Acuity accuses the defendants of infringement “through installation of Rhondium’s OVC products)

Petitions for Inter Partes Review by Smith & Nephew, Inc. of ConforMIS, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 7,981,158 (Inter Partes Reviews Instituted)

Defendant: ConforMIS, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jun 21, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-00510; IPR2017-00511

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Amanda F. Wieker

December 20, 2016 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

June 14, 2017 – Inter Partes Review Instituted (IPR2017-00510); Petition granted in part and denied in part, Inter Partes Review Instituted (IPR2017-00511)

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Smith & Nephew, Inc. of ConforMIS, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 8,551,169

Defendant: ConforMIS, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jun 21, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-00373

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge James A. Worth

November 30, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

June 13, 2017 – Inter Partes Review Instituted

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

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jun 20, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01590

June 16, 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. 8,597,249

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jun 20, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01589

June 16, 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. 8,460,247

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jun 20, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01588

June 16, 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. 9,149,626

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jun 20, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01587

June 16, 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. 8,328,762

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jun 20, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01586

June 16, 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

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jun 20, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01585

June 16, 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. 8,540,728

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jun 20, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01584

June 16, 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. 8,333,735

Defendant: B. Braun Melsungen AG

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Jun 20, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01583

June 16, 2017 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

St. Croix Surgical Systems v. Cardinal Health (new lawsuit filed)

Defendant: Cardinal Health, Inc.

Court: E.D. Tex.

Date: Jun 14, 2017

Docket: 2-17-cv-00500

St. Croix Surgical Systems has sued Cardinal Health, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,568,448 (entitled Clotting Cascade Initiating Apparatus and Methods of Use and Method of Closing Wounds), 8,652,168 (entitled Clotting Cascade Initiating Apparatus and Methods of Use and Methods of Closing Wounds), and 9,669,131 (entitled Clotting Cascade Initiating Apparatus and Methods of Use and Methods of Closing Wounds).  St. Croix accuses the Cardinal Health’s Mynx family of vascular closure devices of infringing all three patents.

Joimax, Inc. v. Surgical Orthopedic Implants, Inc. (new lawsuit filed)

Defendant: Surgical Orthopedic Implants, Inc. d/b/a MaxSpine

Court: C.D. Cal.

Date: Jun 08, 2017

Docket: 8-17-cv-00979

Judge: Judge Josephine L. Staton

Joimax, Inc. has sued Surgical Orthopedic Implants d/b/a MaxSpine (“MaxSpine”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,267,937 (Method for determining a tooth period length of a bone milling cutter); 8,449,546 (Spine cutter); 8,623,021 (Facet joint reamer); and 8,821,378 (Device and method for minimally invasive spinal intervention). According to the complaint, MaxSpine was a distributor for Joimax’s TESSYS system and the corresponding Disposable Kit.  The complaint states that MaxSpine “received the above Joimax products and used them to develop and manufacture identical, all-metal, and purportedly re-usable counterfeit versions of the Reamers . . . The Infringing Reamers are identical copies of the Reamers except that Defendant replaced the plastic connectors with identical metal connectors, so that they could be reusable.”  Joimax asserts that the Infringing Reamers infringe all four asserted patents.

In addition to the patent infringement claims, Joimax asserts claims for breach of contract, federal trademark infringement, federal trade dress infringement, federal false designation or origin, federal trademark dilution, California intentional interference with contractual relations, California intentional interference with prospective economic relations, California trademark infringement, California trademark dilution, and California unfair competition.

Petitions for Inter Partes Review by Cook Group Inc. of Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 8,709,027 (Petitions granted in part and denied in part)

Defendant: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: May 19, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-00133; IPR2017-00134

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge James T. Moore

October 27, 2016 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

May 3, 2017 – Petition (IPR2017-00133) granted in part and denied in part; Inter Partes Review Instituted (IPR2017-00133)

May 3, 2017 – Petition (IPR2017-00134) granted in part and denied in part; Inter Partes Review Instituted (IPR2017-00134)

 

Petitions for Inter Partes Review by Cook Group Inc. of Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 8,685,048 (Inter Partes Review Instituted)

Defendant: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: May 19, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-00131; IPR2017-00132

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge James A. Tartal

October 27, 2016 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

May 15, 2017 — Petition (IPR2017-00131) for Inter Partes Review denied

May 15, 2017 — Petition (IPR2017-00132) granted in part and denied in part; Inter Partes Review Instituted

Petition for Post Grant Review by Minerva Surgical, Inc. of Hologic, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,247,989 (Post Grant Review Instituted)

Defendant: Hologic, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: May 17, 2017

Docket: PGR2017-00002

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Meredith C. Petravick

November 2, 2016 – Petition for Post Grant Review filed

May 10, 2017 – Post Grant Review instituted

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Visionsense Corp. of Novadaq Technologies, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 8,892,190

Defendant: Novadaq Technologies, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: May 17, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-01426

December 9, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Smith & Nephew, Inc. of Arthrex, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,179,907 (Petition granted in part and denied in part)

Defendant: Arthrex, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: May 17, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-00275

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Timothy J. Goodson

November 15, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

May 3, 2017 – Petition granted in part and denied in part; Inter Partes Review Instituted

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Medtronic Xomed, Inc. of Neurovision Medical Products, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 8,634,894 (Inter Partes Review denied)

Defendant: Neurovision Medical Products, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: May 09, 2017

Docket: IPR2017-00456

December 9, 2016 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

May 5, 2017 – Petition for Inter Partes Review denied

Petition for Inter Partes Review By Varian Medical Systems, Inc. of William Beaumont Hospital’s U.S. Patent No. 7,826,592 (Final Written Decision)

Defendant: Elekta AB (and 4 others)

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: May 08, 2017

Docket: IPR2016-00187

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Michael W. Kim

November 6, 2015 — Petition for Inter Partes review filed

May 6, 2016 – Inter Partes Review Instituted

May 4, 2017 – Final Written Decisions finding challenged claims not unpatentable