DCT

2:06-cv-01918

TriMed v. Stryker Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:06-cv-01918, C.D. Cal., 10/21/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts regular business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and the patent's situs is in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s orthopedic plates for bone fracture repair infringe a patent related to pin plate fixation devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns implantable medical devices used in orthopedics to set and stabilize complex bone fractures, particularly those near joints like the wrist.
  • Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint follows a complex procedural path. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has previously admitted in open court that its products meet all limitations of the asserted claims, but now contends the patent is invalid. The complaint notes that at the time of filing, Defendant had a pending request for reexamination of the patent-in-suit at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Subsequent to this complaint's filing, an ex parte reexamination certificate was issued which cancelled the lead asserted independent claim (Claim 1) and amended the asserted dependent claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-01-27 ’839 Patent Priority Date
1999-08-03 ’839 Patent Issue Date
2010-07-29 Request for Reexamination of ’839 Patent Filed
2010-10-21 First Amended Complaint Filing Date
2011-08-30 ’839 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issue Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 5,931,839 - "Pin Plate for Fixation of Bone Fractures," Issued August 3, 1999

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of treating bone fractures near joints, such as Colles' fractures of the wrist ( Compl. ¶9; ’839 Patent, col. 1:9-12). Traditional methods like casting can lead to joint stiffness, while internal fixation with screws can further damage small or osteoporotic bone fragments, and simple pinning may lack the stability to hold fragments in place during healing (’839 Patent, col. 2:6-25, 44-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an implantable "pin plate" system. The plate is first secured with fasteners (e.g., screws) to a stable portion of the bone, proximal to the fracture (’839 Patent, col. 4:65-col. 5:2). One or more small fixation pins are then passed through holes in the plate, across the fracture, through the unstable bone fragments, and into the stable bone on the other side. This creates a stable "two point fixation" for the pin—once at the plate and again in the far cortex of the stable bone—which is designed to rigidly hold the fragments while allowing for early mobilization of the joint (’839 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:56-63).
  • Technical Importance: The described technique sought to provide the rigid stability of open reduction while using less traumatic, small-diameter pins, thereby minimizing further bone damage and avoiding the need for a cast that would immobilize the joint (’839 Patent, col. 3:23-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2 and 7-11 (Compl. ¶13). At the time of filing, Claim 1 was the sole independent claim asserted. (Note: Claim 1 was subsequently cancelled during reexamination proceedings).
  • The essential elements of asserted independent Claim 1 include:
    • An implantable plate with opposite end portions
    • Fastening means to secure one end of the plate to a stable bone
    • At least one fixation pin that penetrates a fractured fragment, traverses the fracture, and enters the stable bone
    • The "near end" of the pin (closest to the plate) is engageable in one of a plurality of holes in the plate
    • The holes in the plate provide means for "allowing the pin to slide axially therein but preventing compression across the fracture"
    • The holes in the plate also provide means for "stabilizing said near end of the pin against displacement in the plane of the plate"

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Stryker’s Radial Column Plates and Ulnar Column Plates (part numbers 54-25400, 54-35401, 54-25402, 54-25403, 54-25404, and 54-25405) when "used in conjunction with Kirschner wires and bone screws" (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused products as medical devices for treating orthopedic injuries, specifically bone fractures (Compl. ¶12). It does not provide a detailed technical description of the accused products' design or operation. Instead, the complaint's infringement theory relies on the assertion that Defendant has admitted its products meet the claim limitations (Compl. ¶14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not present a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis. The central allegation is that "Stryker admits that the Accused Products meet all of the limitations of Claims 1, 2 and 7-11 of the ’839 Patent" (Compl. ¶14). This allegation is repeated in the prayer for relief, which states the admission was made "in open court" (Prayer ¶1). The complaint’s infringement theory thus rests entirely on this alleged admission rather than on a technical comparison of the accused product features to the patent’s claim language.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: A threshold factual dispute will concern the existence, context, and legal effect of Stryker’s alleged "admission" of infringement. The complaint does not specify when or under what circumstances this admission was made.
    • Legal Question (Validity vs. Infringement): The complaint frames the primary dispute as one of patent validity, not infringement. It alleges that Stryker's position is that it does not infringe because the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112 (Compl. ¶19, ¶22).
    • Legal Question (Effect of Reexamination): The reexamination of the ’839 Patent, which resulted in the cancellation of independent Claim 1, raises a critical question about the viability of the lawsuit. Since asserted dependent Claims 2 and 7-11 relied on Claim 1, their basis as originally asserted is eliminated. The court may need to address whether the amended claims that survived reexamination can be asserted in this action and whether the doctrine of intervening rights applies.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While the complaint relies on an alleged admission, construction of the following terms from original Claim 1 would be fundamental to any technical infringement analysis.

  • The Term: "providing means for allowing the pin to slide axially therein but preventing compression across the fracture"
    • Context and Importance: This functional language in Claim 1 describes a key feature of the plate's pin holes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction determines whether any simple hole through which a pin passes suffices, or if a more specific structure is required to perform the dual functions of permitting axial sliding while preventing compression.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers generally to "apertures 2, 3 for fastening screws 7 or pins 8" without detailing a specific structure for all holes that achieves this function, which could support an interpretation that standard pin holes meet the limitation (’839 Patent, col. 4:17-19).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific function—preventing compression—that is not an inherent quality of every hole. This suggests the "means" is tied to this function. Further, the specification discloses specific embodiments like chamfered holes to facilitate pin insertion, which may be argued to relate to this function (’839 Patent, col. 4:20-22).
  • The Term: "stabilizing said near end of the pin against displacement in the plane of the plate"
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the required interaction between the plate and the pin to achieve the invention's goal of enhanced stability. The required degree of "stabilizing" is a potential point of dispute.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Any hole that constrains a pin's lateral movement could be argued to provide some "stabilizing" effect, potentially covering any standard plate with closely toleranced pin holes.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes that the invention provides "greatly enhanced" stability through "two point fixation" (’839 Patent, col. 4:62-63). It also discloses specific features like a "snap" fit engagement for slotted holes, suggesting that "stabilizing" implies more than mere passive constraint (’839 Patent, col. 5:8-10).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "TriMed put Stryker on notice of Stryker's infringing sales, and Stryker has continued to infringe the ’839 Patent despite TriMed's notice" (Compl. ¶15). The basis for willfulness appears to be alleged post-suit knowledge of infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A primary issue will be the legal and factual significance of an alleged admission: What is the scope and binding effect of Stryker's purported "admission in open court" that its products meet all claim limitations, and can this admission sustain an infringement claim if the underlying patent claims are later invalidated or cancelled?
  2. The case will turn on the procedural impact of patent reexamination: Given that the sole asserted independent claim was cancelled and its dependent claims were substantively amended after the complaint was filed, does a viable cause of action for infringement of the originally asserted claims remain, and what intervening rights might Defendant possess against the newly amended claims?
  3. The dispute, as characterized by the Plaintiff, is fundamentally about patent validity: Even if infringement were conceded, the central question before the court is whether the asserted claims of the ’839 Patent are invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of enablement, an issue that was concurrently pending before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.