DCT
3:24-cv-00611
Endobotics LLC v. LivsMed USA Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Endobotics, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: LivsMed USA, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bochner PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-00611, S.D. Cal., 03/29/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant LivsMed resides in the Southern District of California, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "ArtiSential" line of surgical instruments infringes two patents related to articulated, manually operated instruments for minimally invasive surgery.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced laparoscopic and endoscopic instruments with articulated joints, designed to provide surgeons with enhanced dexterity and intuitive control compared to traditional rigid instruments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter-partes reviews, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit. U.S. Patent No. 7,364,582 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,147,650.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-10-30 | Earliest Priority Date ('650 and '582 Patents) |
| 2006-12-12 | U.S. Patent No. 7,147,650 Issued |
| 2008-04-29 | U.S. Patent No. 7,364,582 Issued |
| 2024-03-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,147,650 - "Surgical Instrument" (Issued Dec. 12, 2006)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional endoscopic and laparoscopic instruments as "extremely difficult to learn to operate and use, mainly due to a lack of dexterity" (’650 Patent, col. 1:8-11). The "fulcrum effect," where the instrument pivots at the incision site, makes complex tasks like suturing and fine dissection challenging ('650 Patent, col. 1:11-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a surgical instrument featuring a proximal handle and a distal tool coupled to an elongated shaft via "bendable motion members" ('650 Patent, Abstract). This configuration allows the movement of the handle to be "replicated by the tool at the distal end of the shaft," providing the surgeon with more intuitive control and dexterity than traditional instruments ('650 Patent, col. 2:35-45; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide surgeons with the dexterity needed to perform complex tasks at arbitrary orientations within the body during minimally invasive procedures ('650 Patent, col. 1:21-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶16).
- Essential elements of Claim 4:
- An elongated instrument shaft with proximal and distal ends.
- A tool at the distal end, coupled via a "first movable member."
- A control handle at the proximal end, coupled via a "second movable member."
- Movement of the control handle via the second movable member causes "attendant movement" of the tool via the first movable member.
- At least one of the first and second members is a "bendable motion member."
- The second movable member has a "maximum transverse cross-sectional dimension" that is different from the first.
- The tool's movement is "in the same direction" as the control handle's movement.
U.S. Patent No. 7,364,582 - "Surgical Instrument" (Issued Apr. 29, 2008)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '650 Patent application, the ’582 Patent addresses the same technical problem of improving dexterity in minimally invasive surgical instruments to overcome the "fulcrum effect" ('582 Patent, col. 1:19-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a surgical instrument where both the handle and tool are coupled to the shaft via distinct "bendable members." Motion is transmitted from the proximal bendable member at the handle to the distal bendable member at the tool via an "actuation means," allowing the tool's position to be controlled by the handle's motion ('582 Patent, Claim 41). The specification describes this actuation means as comprising "cables and a push rod" ('582 Patent, col. 2:40-45).
- Technical Importance: This technology seeks to enable more intuitive, wrist-like articulation at the tool end of a surgical instrument, directly translating the surgeon's hand movements into precise actions at the surgical site ('582 Patent, col. 1:26-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 41 (Compl. ¶38).
- Essential elements of Claim 41:
- An elongated instrument shaft with proximal and distal ends.
- A tool at the distal end.
- A control handle at the proximal end.
- A "distal bendable member" coupling the shaft to the tool.
- A "proximal bendable member" coupling the shaft to the handle.
- "Actuation means" extending between the bendable members to couple the motion of the proximal member to the distal member.
- The proximal bendable member has a "maximum transverse cross-sectional dimension" that is different from the distal bendable member.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies LivsMed's "ArtiSential" surgical instruments as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the ArtiSential instruments are manually operated surgical tools used in minimally invasive surgery (Compl. ¶¶2, 5). The allegations describe the instruments as having an elongated shaft, a distal tool (e.g., forceps), and a proximal control handle (Compl. ¶¶17-19). The complaint asserts that these components are connected by articulated joints, alleged to be "movable members" or "bendable members," which allow the instrument's tool tip to mimic the movement of the surgeon's hand on the control handle (Compl. ¶¶22, 24). A diagram in the complaint illustrates this alleged correspondence for movements such as extension, flexion, and deviation (Compl. ¶22, p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'650 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an elongated instrument shaft having proximal and distal ends; a tool disposed from the distal end...; a control handle disposed from the proximal end... | The ArtiSential product is a surgical instrument with an elongated shaft, a tool at the distal end, and a control handle at the proximal end. The complaint provides an image showing the instrument's shaft and handle. (Compl. ¶¶17, 19) | ¶17, ¶18, ¶19 | col. 4:46-54 |
| said tool being coupled to the distal end of said elongated instrument shaft via a first movable member | The tool is allegedly coupled to the shaft via a "first movable member." An image purports to show this component. (Compl. ¶20) | ¶20 | col. 2:12-14 |
| said control handle coupled to the proximal end of said elongated instrument shaft via a second movable member | The control handle is allegedly coupled to the shaft via a "second movable member." An image purports to show this component. (Compl. ¶21) | ¶21 | col. 2:14-16 |
| movement of said control handle...causes attendant movement of said tool | Movement of the handle allegedly causes corresponding movement of the tool. A diagram in the complaint depicts this relationship, showing handle flexion results in tool flexion. (Compl. ¶22) | ¶22 | col. 2:16-20 |
| wherein at least one of said first and second members comprises a bendable motion member | At least one of the alleged first and second members is asserted to be a "bendable motion member." The complaint includes a close-up image identifying this feature on the accused product. (Compl. ¶23) | ¶23 | col. 5:1-7 |
| wherein the maximum transverse cross-sectional dimension of the second movable member is different than that of the first movable member | The complaint alleges that the proximal "second movable member" has a different maximum cross-sectional dimension than the distal "first movable member" (Compl. ¶21). | ¶21 | col. 15:58-64 |
| wherein the tool movement...is in the same direction of the control handle movement | The tool's movement is alleged to be in the same direction as the handle's movement. An image is provided to illustrate this alleged functionality. (Compl. ¶24) | ¶24 | col. 4:30-34 |
'582 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 41) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an elongated instrument shaft...a tool disposed from the distal end...a control handle disposed from the proximal end... | The ArtiSential product is described as a surgical instrument with a shaft, a tool, and a handle (Compl. ¶¶40-42). | ¶40, ¶41, ¶42 | col. 2:18-22 |
| a distal bendable member for coupling the distal end of said elongated instrument shaft to said tool | The complaint alleges the product includes a "distal bendable member" that couples the tool to the shaft and provides an image of the component (Compl. ¶43). | ¶43 | col. 2:22-24 |
| a proximal bendable member for coupling the proximal end of said elongated instrument shaft to said handle | The complaint alleges the product includes a "proximal bendable member" that couples the handle to the shaft (Compl. ¶44). | ¶44 | col. 2:24-25 |
| actuation means extending between said distal and proximal bendable members for coupling motion...for controlling the positioning of said tool | The complaint alleges the product includes "actuation means" for coupling motion between the proximal and distal bendable members. A technical diagram, allegedly of the accused product, is provided to show this feature. (Compl. ¶45) | ¶45 | col. 2:40-45 |
| said proximal bendable member having a maximum transverse cross-sectional dimension that is different than that of said distal bendable member | The complaint alleges that the proximal bendable member has a different maximum transverse cross-sectional dimension than the distal bendable member (Compl. ¶44). | ¶44 | col. 15:58-64 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue for both patents will be the construction of "bendable motion member." The patents describe this feature as enabling a "curved configuration without any sharp breaks or angularity" ('650 Patent, col. 5:5-7). The dispute may focus on whether the articulated joints of the ArtiSential products, as shown in the complaint's images (e.g., Compl. ¶23, p. 7), meet this specific functional and structural definition or operate more like conventional pivot joints.
- Technical Questions: For the '582 Patent, a key technical question relates to the "actuation means" limitation, which is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The patent discloses a corresponding structure of "cables and a push rod" ('582 Patent, col. 2:40-45). The complaint provides a diagram allegedly showing the accused product's mechanism, which appears to utilize a pulley-and-belt system (Compl. ¶45, p. 12). This raises the question of whether the accused mechanism is structurally equivalent to the one disclosed in the patent, which will require a detailed, fact-based analysis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1: "bendable motion member" ('650 Patent, Claim 4; '582 Patent, Claim 41)
Context and Importance
This term is the technological core of the asserted claims, distinguishing the invention from prior art instruments with simple pivots. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the parties will dispute whether the accused product's articulated joints qualify as "bendable."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and the specification states that a "variety of geometries may be employed" for its construction ('650 Patent, col. 6:10-12). This could support an interpretation not limited to the specific examples shown.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific definition, describing the member as an element that can be constrained to "deviate from a straight line to a curved configuration without any sharp breaks or angularity" ('650 Patent, col. 5:3-7). The patent also discloses specific "ribbed" and "bellows" constructions (e.g., Figs. 5A, 5B), which a defendant might argue limit the term's scope to these or similar structures.
Term 2: "actuation means...for coupling motion...for controlling the positioning of said tool" ('582 Patent, Claim 41)
Context and Importance
This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its construction is a two-step process: defining the claimed function and then identifying the corresponding structure in the specification. Infringement requires the accused device to have a structure that is identical or equivalent to the one disclosed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's own evidence (Compl. ¶45, p. 12) depicts a mechanism in the accused product that appears structurally different from the patent's disclosure.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- The Function: The claim explicitly recites the function: "coupling motion of said proximal bendable member to said distal bendable member for controlling the positioning of said tool."
- The Corresponding Structure: The specification discloses that the tool and handle motion members are coupled "via cables and a push rod" to replicate movement ('582 Patent, col. 2:40-45). This "cables and a push rod" combination is the specific structure against which the accused product's mechanism must be compared for identity or equivalence.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. Inducement is based on allegations that LivsMed provides instructions, promotional materials, and videos that instruct and encourage customers to use the ArtiSential products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶28, 49). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that LivsMed sells or imports components of the accused products that are a material part of the invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and are known to be especially adapted for an infringing use (Compl. ¶¶29, 50).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that LivsMed’s infringement has been and continues to be willful, based on knowledge of the patents "at least as of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶35, 56). This frames the willfulness claim as arising from post-suit conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "bendable motion member," which the patent defines as creating a curve "without any sharp breaks or angularity," be construed to read on the multi-jointed articulating wrists of the accused ArtiSential instruments? The resolution will depend on whether the accused product's operation is found to match the specific functional and structural characteristics described in the patents.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural equivalence: for the '582 Patent, does the accused product's "actuation means," depicted in the complaint as a belt-and-pulley system, perform the claimed function using a structure that is equivalent to the "cables and a push rod" system disclosed in the patent specification? This will likely be a central point of contention requiring detailed expert testimony.