DCT

1:17-cv-00660

Cochlear Ltd v. Oticon Medical Ab

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00660, D. Colo., 03/14/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because infringement has occurred within the state and the accused products have been offered for sale and sold there, including through clinics promoted on Defendant's website.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s abutment extension for its Ponto bone anchored hearing system, which allows it to connect to Plaintiff's Baha brand abutments, infringes a patent related to prosthesis adapters.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves adapters for bone-anchored hearing systems, which enable patients with surgically-implanted abutments from one manufacturer to use external sound processors from a different, otherwise incompatible, manufacturer.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit issued on March 14, 2017, the same day the complaint was filed. This timing precludes any claim for pre-suit infringement and may be a factor in any future analysis of willful infringement, which would be limited to post-filing conduct.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-12-21 '550 Patent Priority Date
2017-03-14 '550 Patent Issue Date
2017-03-14 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,596,550 - "Prosthesis adapter"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,596,550, "Prosthesis adapter," issued March 14, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the commercial and practical problem of incompatibility between different brands of bone conduction hearing systems ('550 Patent, col. 5:26-31). These systems typically consist of a surgically implanted abutment fixed to the skull and a removable external sound processor. The coupling mechanisms are often proprietary, which prevents a recipient with one brand's implant from using another brand's processor without undergoing another surgical procedure to replace the abutment ('550 Patent, col. 5:26-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an adapter that acts as an intermediary component. It is configured to attach to a pre-existing, implanted abutment on one end, and on its other end, it provides a new coupling point for an otherwise incompatible sound processor ('550 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-9). This allows a user to switch between competing sound processor technologies without replacing the surgically-implanted hardware.
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides interoperability in a market characterized by proprietary, closed ecosystems, offering users greater flexibility and choice.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 8 of the '550 Patent. (Compl. ¶27).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 8 are:
    • A percutaneous bone conduction prosthesis structural component, comprising: an adapter configured to indirectly couple a coupling apparatus of an operationally removable component (e.g., a sound processor) to a coupling apparatus of a body interfacing prosthesis (e.g., an abutment).
    • The adapter is devoid of a snap-coupling component on a first longitudinal end.
    • The adapter is configured as a male snap coupling component on an opposite longitudinal end.
    • The opposite longitudinal end has a maximum outer diameter greater than a maximum outer diameter of the first longitudinal end.
  • The complaint notes that infringement is alleged under the doctrine of equivalents and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused product is the Oticon Medical "Ponto abutment extension" (also referred to as the "AE") (Compl. ¶21, 24).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Ponto abutment extension is an adapter designed to connect Defendant's Ponto sound processor to Plaintiff's Baha brand abutment (Compl. ¶21, 25). The complaint alleges that the extension attaches to the Baha abutment not via a snap-fit, but through a connection secured by a center screw and tightened with a torque wrench (Compl. ¶23, 27). The other end of the extension allegedly provides a connection point for the Ponto sound processor (Compl. ¶25). An instructional diagram from the accused product's manual depicts a multi-step process for attaching the abutment extension (AE) to an existing abutment using a counter torque wrench and a screwdriver (Compl. ¶23).
  • The complaint alleges the product is marketed to "existing bone anchored hearing solution users," suggesting a strategy to attract customers already within a competitor's ecosystem (Cochlear's) by offering them access to the Ponto system without requiring new surgery (Compl. ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'550 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an adapter configured to indirectly couple a coupling apparatus of an operationally removable component...to a coupling apparatus of a body interfacing prosthesis... The Oticon Medical abutment extension is alleged to be an adapter that connects an Oticon Medical sound processor to a Cochlear Baha abutment. ¶27 col. 5:26-31
wherein the adapter is devoid of a snap-coupling component on a first longitudinal end thereof The complaint alleges that the end of the adapter connecting to the Cochlear Baha abutment uses a center screw tightened with a torque wrench, rather than a snap-coupling. ¶27 col. 5:42-53
and is configured as a male snap coupling component on an opposite longitudinal end thereof The complaint alleges the end of the adapter that connects to the Oticon sound processor is configured as a male snap coupling component. ¶27 col. 9:36-40
wherein the opposite longitudinal end thereof has a maximum outer diameter greater than a maximum outer diameter of the first longitudinal end. The complaint alleges the Oticon Medical abutment extension is tapered such that the end for the sound processor has a greater maximum outer diameter than the end for the existing abutment. ¶27 col. 10:11-16

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be whether the accused adapter's screw-and-torque-wrench mechanism for attaching to the Baha abutment falls within the scope of being "devoid of a snap-coupling component" as required by the claim. The interpretation of this negative limitation will be critical.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the adapter's dimensions satisfy the "maximum outer diameter" limitation. This raises an evidentiary question of whether physical measurements of the accused product will confirm this geometric requirement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "snap-coupling component"
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is fundamental to the dispute. Claim 8 requires one end of the adapter to be "devoid of" this component and the opposite end to be configured as this component. The infringement analysis depends entirely on this distinction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification contrasts different types of connections, such as snap-couples and screw-on mechanisms, without providing a narrow definition for "snap-coupling" ('550 Patent, col. 5:26-53). A party could argue this supports using the term's plain and ordinary meaning, which would likely differentiate a friction- and tension-based screw connection from an interlocking snap-fit.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific embodiments of a snap-coupling, such as one with "teeth 242" that deform and interface with an "overhang 222" ('550 Patent, Fig. 2B; col. 4:51-56). A party could argue that "snap-coupling component" should be limited to these or structurally similar embodiments, which could narrow the scope of what the first end of the adapter must be "devoid of."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces and contributes to infringement by promoting, marketing, and providing instructions for its abutment extension to recipients, audiologists, and physicians (Compl. ¶26, 30). The complaint includes a user manual diagram as evidence of these instructions (Compl. ¶23).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not make specific allegations of willful infringement. The patent-in-suit issued on the same day the complaint was filed, precluding any basis for pre-suit willfulness.

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define "snap-coupling component"? The infringement analysis hinges on the asserted technical difference between the adapter's two ends—one that allegedly possesses this feature and one that is "devoid" of it.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the accused product's screw-and-torque-wrench connection to the existing abutment, as depicted in its own user manual, factually constitute a mechanism that is "devoid of a snap-coupling component" under the court's construction of that term?