DCT

1:18-cv-00666

TriMed Inc v. Arthrex Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00666, D. Del., 05/16/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Arthrex is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s orthopedic plating systems for the wrist, ankle, and foot infringe two patents related to contoured bone plates with hook members for fixing complex fractures.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of orthopedic surgery, specifically devices for the internal fixation of bone fractures that occur near joints, where bone fragments are often small and difficult to secure with conventional plates and screws.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 9,283,010 is a continuation-in-part of a chain of applications leading back to the application for U.S. Patent No. 8,177,822, indicating a shared technological lineage and a common priority basis.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-05-05 Priority Date for ’822 and ’010 Patents
2012-05-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,177,822 Issues
2016-03-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,283,010 Issues
2018-05-16 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,177,822: “Contoured Bone Plate For Fracture Fixation Having Hook Members and Drill Guide For The Same” (Issued May 15, 2012)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of using conventional bone plates to fix fractures near the end of a bone, such as the lateral malleolus (the outer part of the ankle). In these situations, the terminal bone fragment is often too small to accommodate a sufficient number of screws for stable fixation. Previous hook-plate designs were often flat and failed to conform to the natural, flared shape of the bone at the joint, causing the implant to sit improperly off the bone surface (’822 Patent, col. 1:25-45, col. 2:1-7).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a bone plate with an "angled" or "flared" region specifically contoured to match the flared surface of a bone's terminal end. This allows the plate to sit flush against the bone. The plate includes hook members that extend from one end and are designed to engage the small bone fragment. To ensure proper placement, the hooks have a longitudinal axis that is substantially parallel to the axis of the plate's flared region, allowing the entire construct to seat congruently when impacted into the bone. The patent also discloses a complementary drill guide system to create pilot holes at the correct trajectory and depth for the hooks (’822 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-67).
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a more anatomically correct and stable fixation for small, terminal bone fragments compared to prior art plates, potentially improving surgical outcomes for difficult-to-treat fractures near joints (’822 Patent, col. 2:25-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims but reserves the right to identify them later (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). Independent claims of the patent include Claim 1 (a combination of a bone plate and a drill guide) and Claim 8 (a bone plate with a flared region).

U.S. Patent No. 9,283,010: “Contoured Bone Plate For Fracture Fixation Having Hook Members and Holder/Impactor For Same” (Issued March 15, 2016)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent addresses similar issues but with a focus on distal radius (wrist) fractures. It notes that conventional volar plates may not extend to the distal rim of the radius, leaving small but critical fragments unsecured. This can lead to a "catastrophic loss of reduction." Furthermore, fragment-specific implants often require complex, multi-step surgical techniques, including pre-drilling holes for pins or pegs (’010 Patent, col. 3:45-56, col. 4:1-17).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a bone plate with hook members that are sharpened on their tips and leading edges to create "cutting surfaces." This design allows the hooks to be directly impacted into cortical bone "like a nail or staple," eliminating the need for pre-drilling. The hooks are angled to act as a buttress, providing subchondral support to prevent the fracture from collapsing or shortening. The invention also describes a "holder/impactor" instrument designed to securely grip the plate and provide a striking surface, facilitating precise placement and impaction by the surgeon (’010 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:1-17, col. 5:6-14).
  • Technical Importance: This technology seeks to simplify the surgical procedure for complex wrist fractures by enabling direct impaction of the fixation device, while providing robust, buttress-style support to small articular fragments that were difficult to manage with previous implants (’010 Patent, col. 5:1-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent claims of the patent include Claim 1 (a bone plate with sharpened hook members) and Claim 12 (a combination of a bone plate and an impacting instrument).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses Arthrex's "Wrist Plating System" of infringing the ’822 Patent (Compl. ¶10). It accuses the "Wrist Plating System, 5th Metatarsal Fracture System, and Ankle Fracture Management System" of infringing the ’010 Patent (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused products by name but does not provide specific details regarding their design, technical functionality, or operation (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). Similarly, no factual allegations are made regarding the products' commercial importance beyond general assertions of damages.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts or detailed, element-by-element infringement allegations. It alleges that the accused product systems "embody and/or practice one or more claims" of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). Consequently, a detailed claim-chart analysis is not possible based on the provided complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a flared region" (’822 Patent, e.g., Claim 8)

    • Context and Importance: The scope of this term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’822 Patent. The patent’s advance is tied to a plate contour that anatomically matches the "flared contour of the bone" to ensure a flush fit (’822 Patent, col. 6:11-14). Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely concern how closely an accused plate's shape must conform to a specific anatomical flare to meet this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the region as potentially "angled or curved," suggesting the exact geometry is not rigid (’822 Patent, col. 2:51-52).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the "flared region" to the specific technical goal of matching the contour of bones like the lateral malleolus or olecranon (’822 Patent, col. 5:49-54). Embodiments provide specific dimensional examples, such as bend angles of approximately 10° and 25°, which could be used to argue for a more constrained definition (’822 Patent, col. 6:15-28).

  • The Term: "sharpened at both the distal tip and along the longitudinal edge to create cutting surfaces" (’010 Patent, e.g., Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is critical to the ’010 Patent's asserted novelty of allowing direct impaction without pre-drilling. The infringement question will turn on whether the accused hooks are merely pointed or possess the distinct "cutting surfaces" along an edge as claimed.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any beveled or tapered edge that facilitates entry into bone qualifies as a "cutting surface."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states this feature allows the hooks to be "simultaneously impacted like a nail or staple," which "eliminates the steps of setting up a drill guide, drilling," and finding the holes (’010 Patent, col. 7:1-6). This context suggests a specific degree of sharpness sufficient to penetrate cortical bone, distinguishing it from a simple pointed tip.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). However, it does not plead specific supporting facts, such as identifying instructions for use, marketing materials, or user manuals that would allegedly encourage or enable infringing acts by third parties.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that the alleged infringement has been willful "upon information and belief" (Compl. ¶¶14, 19). It does not provide a factual basis to suggest Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents or a specific intent to infringe.

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

  • A primary issue is evidentiary. The complaint provides only notice of a dispute. A key task for the plaintiff will be to develop and present specific evidence mapping the technical features of Arthrex's various plating systems to the distinct limitations recited in the asserted claims of each patent.
  • The case will likely turn on questions of claim scope and technical function. For the ’822 Patent, the central question is whether the accused plates possess a "flared region" that corresponds to the patent's specific anatomical-matching purpose. For the ’010 Patent, the dispositive issue may be whether the accused hooks incorporate the claimed "cutting surfaces" along an edge that enable impaction without pre-drilling, or if they have a more conventional pointed design.