DCT

8:22-cv-02535

Novocure GmbH v. Fieldcure Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:22-cv-02535, M.D. Fla., 11/07/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s tumor treating field device infringes three patents related to cancer therapy using alternating electric fields.
  • Technical Context: The technology, known as Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields), involves applying specific-frequency alternating electric fields to a patient's body to disrupt cancer cell division.
  • Key Procedural History: The action is brought for direct infringement and, alternatively, for a declaratory judgment of infringement based on Defendant's alleged impending importation and use of the accused device at a professional conference within the district. The complaint alleges that Defendant’s Korean patent cites Plaintiff's patents as prior art, which may be relevant to the issue of knowledge for willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-10-02 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 7,136,699
2004-12-07 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 7,715,921
2006-11-14 U.S. Patent 7,136,699 Issued
2007-09-17 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 8,715,203
2010-05-11 U.S. Patent 7,715,921 Issued
2014-05-06 U.S. Patent 8,715,203 Issued
2017-01-01 Fieldcure allegedly founded (approximate year)
2022-11-07 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,136,699 - "Apparatus for Destroying Dividing Cells" (Issued Nov. 14, 2006)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of selectively destroying cancer cells without harming surrounding healthy tissue, noting that conventional treatments like radiation and chemotherapy often cause significant collateral damage and that other electrical methods can be indiscriminate or cause harmful side effects. (’699 Patent, col. 2:4-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus that uses insulated electrodes to apply an intermediate-frequency (e.g., 50-500 KHz) alternating electric field to living tissue. The field is designed to exploit the unique shape of a cell during division. As the field passes through a dividing cell, it becomes non-homogeneous and concentrates in the narrow "cleavage furrow," creating forces that pull polarizable intracellular components toward this region, ultimately causing the cell membrane to rupture and destroy the cell. (’699 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:5-40).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a way to target cells based on the physics of their geometry during mitosis, rather than relying on chemical sensitivity or susceptibility to radiation, while using electric field frequencies designed to avoid the stimulatory or thermal effects of other electrical treatments. (’699 Patent, col. 7:25-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • An apparatus for selectively destroying dividing cells.
    • A first insulated electrode and a second insulated electrode, each configured for placement against living tissue.
    • An electric field source for applying an alternating electric potential across the electrodes.
    • The amplitude, frequency, and capacitance are such that an electric field is induced in the tissue.
    • This induced field transforms into a non-homogenous electric field within dividing cells, producing an increased field density in the cleavage furrow.
    • The field intensity is sufficient to move polarizable intracellular members toward the cleavage furrow.

U.S. Patent No. 7,715,921 - "Electrodes for Applying an Electric Field In-Vivo Over an Extended Period of Time" (Issued May 11, 2010)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the skin irritation and damage that can occur from the long-term application of electrodes, which can occlude sweat glands and hair follicles or cause chemical reactions. (’921 Patent, col. 3:1-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an electrode with a conductive substrate that contains a plurality of "open spaces." These perforations are designed to allow the underlying skin to "breathe" by permitting moisture to escape. To apply the electric field, the patient-facing side of the conductive substrate is insulated with a thin coating of a material having a high dielectric constant (at least 1000). (’921 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:35-51).
  • Technical Importance: This electrode design aimed to improve patient comfort and compliance during long-term therapies by mitigating a primary side effect, thereby increasing the practical viability of continuous treatment. (’921 Patent, col. 3:28-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • An electrode configured for placement on a patient's body.
    • A conductive substrate with a patient-facing side.
    • The substrate has a plurality of open spaces passing through it.
    • The open spaces are distributed and sized to permit moisture to escape.
    • A thin dielectric material is disposed on the patient-facing side of the substrate to provide insulation.
    • The dielectric coating has a dielectric constant of at least 1000.

U.S. Patent No. 8,715,203 - "Composite Electrode" (Issued May 6, 2014)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,715,203, "Composite Electrode", issued May 6, 2014 (Compl. ¶25).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a composite electrode designed to improve conformity to the body and manage temperature during treatment. The electrode is made of multiple discrete ceramic elements, mechanically connected by a support structure like a flex circuit, and includes temperature sensors to monitor the skin and prevent overheating. (’203 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-16).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Fieldcure Device infringes by using a composite electrode comprising a plurality of ceramic elements, a lead, an electrical conductor, and a support structure, as recited in the claims (Compl. ¶¶72-73).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The iField-P200 tumor treating field device ("Fieldcure Device") (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Fieldcure Device is intended for TTFields therapy and has been built for that purpose (Compl. ¶39). A photo on the Defendant's website shows the "Treatment Device," which includes a generator and electrode arrays (Compl. ¶39, p. 14).
  • Allegations based on Defendant's Korean patent describe the device as comprising electrode pads with multiple electrodes that transmit an electric field of 100-300kHz to a patient's tumor (Compl. ¶¶42-43). A figure from this patent shows a source generating a 100-300kHz signal connected to two electrode pads (Compl. ¶41, p. 16).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant's personnel represented that the hardware specifications of the Fieldcure Device are "virtually identical" to Plaintiff's commercial Optune® device (Compl. ¶45).
  • Defendant is accused of planning to import and display the device at a neuro-oncology conference in Florida to solicit investment and promote commercialization (Compl. ¶¶47-48). The complaint includes photos allegedly from a prior conference showing the Fieldcure Device and its components in an operative configuration (Compl. ¶40, p. 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent (Exhibits D, E, F), but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint. The infringement analysis is therefore based on the narrative allegations.

'699 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Fieldcure Device meets every limitation of claim 1, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶51). The core of the allegation is that the Fieldcure Device is an apparatus that, like the claimed invention, uses insulated electrodes and an alternating electric field source to selectively destroy dividing cells (Compl. ¶50). This theory is supported by descriptions from Fieldcure's own Korean patent, which disclose an "electric field cancer treatment apparatus" using "a pair of electrode pads having a plurality of electrodes" to transmit an electric field to a tumor at frequencies (100-300kHz) that overlap with those described in the ’699 Patent (Compl. ¶¶42-43).

'921 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Fieldcure Device's electrodes meet every limitation of claim 1 of the ’921 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶62). The infringement theory relies on the allegation that the Fieldcure Device's electrodes are designed for prolonged skin contact and incorporate a conductive substrate with open spaces for ventilation, insulated by a thin dielectric material (Compl. ¶61). This allegation is supported by the claim that the Fieldcure Device's hardware is "virtually identical" to Plaintiff's Optune® device, which embodies the patented technology (Compl. ¶45).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute for the ’699 Patent concerns the functional language requiring the induced electric field to "transform" into a "non-homogenous electric field" that produces an "increased density electric field in a region of a cleavage furrow." (Compl. ¶50). Proving that the accused device achieves this specific biophysical effect inside a dividing cell, as opposed to merely applying a general electric field, may be a significant evidentiary hurdle.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’921 Patent, a key technical question is whether the accused electrodes use a dielectric coating with a constant of "at least 1000" as claimed (Compl. ¶61). Further, the analysis may focus on whether the openings in the accused electrodes are functionally "sized to permit moisture ... to escape," as the claim requires, or if they are merely structural artifacts that do not meet this functional limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "insulated electrode" (’699 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the ’699 Patent, as it distinguishes the invention from prior art using conventional conducting electrodes. Its construction will be critical for determining whether the accused device, which allegedly uses similar components, falls within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad, functional definition, stating that insulated electrodes "consist of a conductor in contact with a dielectric (insulating layer) that is in contact with the conductive tissue, thus forming a capacitor" (’699 Patent, col. 6:66-col. 7:2).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also discloses specific embodiments with high-dielectric-constant materials (e.g., titanium dioxide) and specific thicknesses (’699 Patent, col. 13:35-48). A party may argue the term should be construed more narrowly in light of these specific examples.

The Term: "open spaces are distributed and sized to permit moisture...to escape" (’921 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This functional limitation is central to the novelty of the ’921 Patent’s electrode design. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused electrodes are merely perforated or if their openings are specifically "sized" to perform the recited function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function broadly, stating the spaces "allow the skin beneath the electrode...to 'breathe' by allowing air to reach the skin" (’921 Patent, col. 5:46-49). This supports reading the claim to cover any structure that accomplishes this purpose.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides preferred dimensions, such as spaces that "may be at least 2 mm wide, or more preferably, at least 4 mm wide" (’921 Patent, col. 5:40-44). A party may argue that these disclosures limit the claim to structures meeting these or similar dimensional criteria.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 64, 75). The allegations of pre-suit knowledge are based on evidence from Defendant's own public materials, including its website, which allegedly "touts Dr. Palti's inventive work" and Novocure's clinical data (Compl. ¶¶ 37-38). The complaint further alleges that Defendant's Korean patent lists Novocure patents and applications as prior art, suggesting direct awareness of the intellectual property (Compl. ¶44).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the Fieldcure Device meets the specific functional limitations of the claims, such as inducing a non-homogeneous field in the cleavage furrow of a dividing cell ('699 Patent) and employing a dielectric coating with a constant over 1000 ('921 Patent), particularly given the allegations rest on claims of "virtual identity" rather than direct testing?
  • A central legal issue will be one of infringing "use": does Defendant's planned importation and display of the device at a conference "to solicit investment" constitute an infringing act of "use" under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), or can it be characterized as a non-infringing de minimis demonstration?
  • A threshold procedural question will be one of justiciability: given that the lawsuit was filed based on an "impending" importation, the court may first need to determine if Defendant's stated intent and preparations to bring the device into the district created an "actual case or controversy" sufficient to support jurisdiction for declaratory judgment.