Boston Scientific Files Second IPR Petition Against UAB Patent
| Printer friendly version
Boston Scientific Corporation (“Boston Scientific”) filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on April 10, 2015 requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,563 (“the ’563 Patent”). The petition states that the ’563 Patent is owned by the UAB Research Foundation. The petition has been assigned Case No. IPR2015-01038.
The ’563 Patent is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Treating Cardiac Arrhythmia,” and lists as inventors Bruce H. KenKnight, Raymond E. Ideker, Robert S. Booker, III, and Stephen J. Hahn. The ’563 Patent states that it “relates to methods and an implantable apparatus for treating cardiac arrhythmia, particularly ventricular fibrillation.” Figure 1 from the ’563 Patent is shown below.
The petition seeks review of all twenty of the ’563 Patent’s claims “as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on U.S. Patent No. 5,181,511 (‘Nickolls’), U.S. Patent No. 5,433,729 (‘Adams’), and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”
The petition states that the ’563 Patent has been asserted by the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the UAB Research Foundation against Boston Scientific and Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. in a lawsuit filed on September 22, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint alleges that Boston Scientific and Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Boston Scientific, infringe the ’563 Patent by making, using, offering to sell or selling cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (“CRT-Ds”), “including but not limited to the Incepta, Enrgen, Cognis, and Livian CRT-Ds . . . .”
The petition also states that Boston Scientific previously filed a petition requesting inter partes review of the ’563 Patent, alleging that all twenty claims were invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by U.S. Patent No. 5,797,967 to KenKnight. The prior petition was filed on March 23, 2015, and was assigned Case No. IPR2015-00918.
Related
Daniel Fullerton
Daniel C. Fullerton is an associate in the firm’s Orange County office.
Mr. Fullerton specializes in intellectual property law, with a focus on patent preparation and prosecution in the medical device field. During law school, Mr. Fullerton worked as a clinical intern for the USC Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic, where he worked on various copyright and other intellectual property matters for individuals and non-profits.
View all posts published by Daniel Fullerton »
By using this blog, you agree and understand that no information is being provided in the context of any attorney-client relationship. You further agree and understand that nothing herein is intended to be legal advice. This blog is solely informational in nature, and is not intended as, and should not be used as, a substitute for competent legal advice from a retained and licensed attorney in your state. Knobbe Martens LLP makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the information in this blog. Knobbe Martens LLP will not be liable for any injury or damages relating to your use of, or access to, any such information. Knobbe Martens LLP undertakes no obligation to correct or update information on this blog, which may be incorrect or become incorrect or out of date over time. Knobbe Martens LLP reserves the right to alter or delete content or information on the blog at any time. This blog contains links and references to other websites and publications that you may find of interest. Knobbe Martens LLP does not control, promote, endorse or otherwise have any affiliation with any other websites or publications unless those websites or publications expressly state such an affiliation. Knobbe Martens LLP further has no responsibility for, and makes no representations regarding, the content, accuracy or any other aspect of the information in such websites or publications.
The petition seeks review of all twenty of the ’563 Patent’s claims “as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on U.S. Patent No. 5,181,511 (‘Nickolls’), U.S. Patent No. 5,433,729 (‘Adams’), and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”
Share