ERMI LLC v. Sportstek Medical, Inc. et al (new lawsuit filed)

Defendant: Sportstek Medical, Inc. et al

Court: S.D. Cal.

Date: Apr 03, 2019

Docket: 3-19-cv-00608

Judge: Judge William Q. Hayes

ERMI LLC has sued Sportstek Medical, Inc. and Dane Jensen in the Southern District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,547,289 (“Shoulder extension control device”).  ERMI accuses the T-Rex Orbit for Shoulder of infringement.

ERMI LLC v. Northstate Surgical Devices, LLC et al (new lawsuit filed)

Defendant: Northstate Surgical Devices, LLC et al

Court: E.D.N.C.

Date: Apr 02, 2019

Docket: 5-19-cv-00124

Judge: Judge James C. Dever, III

ERMI LLC has sued Northstate Surgical Devices, LLC and Mary Patricia Coppedge for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,547,289 (“Shoulder extension control device”) in the Eastern District of North Carolina.  ERMI accuses the T-Rex Orbit for Shoulder of infringement.

ERMI LLC v. Detroit Medical Devices et al (new lawsuit filed)

Defendant: Detroit Medical Devices et al

Court: E.D. Michigan

Date: Apr 02, 2019

Docket: 2-19-cv-10966

Judge: Judge Terrence G. Berg

ERMI LLC has sued Detroit Medical Devices and Douglas B Jones for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,547,289 (“Shoulder extension control device”) in the Eastern District of Michigan.  ERMI accuses the T-Rex Orbit for Shoulder of infringement.

ERMI LLC v. Graymont Equip. Dist., LLC /d/b/a Graymont Medical et al (new lawsuit filed)

Defendant: Graymont Equip. Dist d/b/a Graymont Medical et al.

Court: N.D. Ill.

Date: Apr 02, 2019

Docket: 2-19-cv-02217

Judge: Judge Gary Feinerman

ERMI LLC has sued Graymont Medical and Kinnick Medical Limited for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,547,289 (“Shoulder extension control device”) in the Northern District of Illinois.  ERMI accuses the T-Rex Orbit for Shoulder of infringement.

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Paragon 28, Inc. of Wright Medical Technology, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,259,253

Defendant: Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Apr 01, 2019

Docket: IPR2019-00898

March 29, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Paragon 28, Inc. of Wright Medical Technology, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,545,278

Defendant: Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Apr 01, 2019

Docket: IPR2019-00896

March 29, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Paragon 28, Inc. of Wright Medical Technology, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,259,252

Defendant: Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 29, 2019

Docket: IPR2019-00895

March 28, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Paragon 28, Inc. of Wright Medical Technology, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,144,443

Defendant: Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 29, 2019

Docket: IPR2019-00894

March 28, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Abbott Vascular, Inc. et al. of FlexStent, LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 6,187,035

Defendant: FlexStent, LLC

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 27, 2019

Docket: IPR2019-00882

March 26, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review filed

NuVasive, Inc. v. Alphatec Holdings, Inc. et al (claim construction)

Defendant: Alphatec Holdings, Inc

Court: S.D. Cal.

Date: Mar 22, 2019

Docket: 3-18-cv-00347

Judge: Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo

The Court has construed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,819,801; 8,355,780; 8,439,892; 9,833,227; 9,924,859; and 9,974,531.

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Becton, Dickinson and Company of Baxter International, Inc. et al’s U.S. Patent No. 6,852,103 (Inter Partes Review Denied)

Defendant: Baxter International, Inc. et al

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 21, 2019

Docket: IPR2018-01744

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Barry L. Grossman

September 17, 2018 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

March 19, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review denied

Glaukos Corp. v. Ivantis, Inc. (summary judgment)

Defendant: Ivantis, Inc

Court: C.D. Cal.

Date: Mar 21, 2019

Docket: 8-18-cv-00620

Judge: Judge James V. Selna

The court granted Ivantis’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,540,659; 9,603,741; and 9,833,357.

P Tech, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical (new lawsuit filed)

Defendant: Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

Court: D. Del.

Date: Mar 18, 2019

Docket: DED-1-99-cv-de460

P Tech, LLC has sued Intuitive Surgical Inc in the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,149,281 (“Robotic system for engaging a fastener with body tissue) and 9,192,395 (“Robotic fastening system”).  P Tech accuses Intuitive Surgical’s EndoWrist and SureForm for use with the da Vinci Surgical System of infringement.

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Becton, Dickinson and Company of Baxter International, Inc. et al’s U.S. Patent No. 6,159,192 (Inter Partes Review Denied)

Defendant: Baxter International, Inc. et al

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 15, 2019

Docket: IPR2018-01742

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Timothy J. Goodson

September 17, 2018 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

March 13, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review denied

Petitions for Inter Partes Review by AgaMatrix, Inc. of Dexcom, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,750,460 (Inter Partes Review Denied)

Defendant: Dexcom, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 15, 2019

Docket: IPR2018-01717; IPR2018-01718

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Patrick R. Scanlon

September 14, 2018 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

March 13, 2019 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review denied

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. of Cardio Flow, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,089,362 (Inter Partes Review Denied)

Defendant: Cardio Flow, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 12, 2019

Docket: IPR2018-01658

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Barry L. Grossman

September 5, 2018 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

March 8, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review denied

Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp (Summary Judgment)

Defendant: Stryker Corp

Court: D. Del.

Date: Mar 11, 2019

Docket: 1-16-cv-00679

Judge: Judge Richard G. Andrews

The court issued its order on the parties summary judgment motions, granting and denying each in part.

Petitions for Inter Partes Review by OrthoPediatrics Corp. et al of K2M, Inc. et al’s U.S. Patent No. 9,655,664 (Inter Partes Review Denied)

Defendant: K2M, Inc. et al

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 07, 2019

Docket: IPR2018-01546; IPR2018-01547; IPR2018-01548

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Lynne H. Browne

August 21, 2018 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

February 14, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2018-01546) Denied

February 22, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2018-01547) Denied

March 1, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2018-01548) Denied

Petitions for Inter Partes Review by Cook Incorporated et al. of Medtronic Vascular, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 8,206,427 (Inter Partes Review Denied)

Defendant: Medtronic Vascular, Inc.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Date: Mar 07, 2019

Docket: IPR2018-01569; IPR2018-01570; IPR2018-01571

Judge: Administrative Patent Judge Michael L. Woods

August 31, 2018 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review filed

March 1, 2019 — Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2018-01569) Denied

March 4, 2019 — Petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR2018-01570; IPR2018-01571) Denied

Acantha LLC v. NuVasive, Inc. (new lawsuit filed)

Defendant: NuVasive, Inc.

Court: E.D. Michigan

Date: Mar 06, 2019

Docket: 4-19-cv-10656

Judge: Judge Matthew F. Leitman

Acantha LLC has sued NuVasive, Inc. in the Eastern District of Michigan for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE43008 (“Orthopedic implant assembly).  Acantha accuses the “NuVasive Helix Anterior Cervical Plate (“ACP”) family of systems (NuVasive Helix ACP, NuVasive Helix Mini ACP, NuVasive Helix-T ACP, and NuVasive Helix-Revolution ACP)” of infringement.