DCT
1:10-cv-10050
Kimmelstiel v. Merit Medical Systems, Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Carey Kimmelstiel, M.D. (Massachusetts)
- Defendant: Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Iandiorio Teska & Coleman
- Case Identification: Carey Kimmelstiel, M.D. v. Merit Medical Systems, Inc., 1:10-cv-10050, D. Mass., 01/14/2010
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant conducting business and selling the accused infringing products in the District of Massachusetts.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s medical guidewire torque devices infringe a patent related to a one-handed, self-gripping torquer mechanism.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns devices used by surgeons to precisely manipulate guidewires during vascular procedures such as angioplasty, where quick, one-handed repositioning can be critical.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified Defendant of the patent-in-suit in May 2001, nearly nine years before filing suit. Defendant allegedly "expressed a lack of interest" at that time.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1993-05-04 | U.S. Patent No. 5,325,868 Priority Date |
| 1994-07-05 | U.S. Patent No. 5,325,868 Issued |
| May 2001 | Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant of the '868 Patent |
| 2007 | Defendant allegedly began selling "Sea Dragon" product |
| 2010-01-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,325,868, "Self-Gripping Medical Wire Torquer", issued July 5, 1994.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional guidewire torquers used in angioplasty as requiring a two-handed operation to reposition them along the wire (e.g., turning a locking nut) (’868 Patent, col. 1:26-41). This process is described as time-consuming, requiring the surgeon to divert attention from monitoring equipment, and risking inadvertent movement of the guidewire within the patient's artery (’868 Patent, col. 1:42-53, col. 2:1-6).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "one-handed self-gripping wire torquer" that is biased to automatically grip the guidewire (’868 Patent, col. 2:33-40). A surgeon can depress an actuator (e.g., a button) with one hand to temporarily release the clamp, slide the torquer to a new position on the wire, and then release the actuator, causing the device to automatically re-engage the wire without twisting or jerking it (’868 Patent, col. 4:32-40). The core concept is a default-on grip that is temporarily disengaged for repositioning.
- Technical Importance: This design sought to allow surgeons to reposition the torquer more quickly and without diverting their full attention or both hands from the surgical procedure, thereby improving efficiency and potentially reducing patient risk (’868 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of the '868 Patent generally, without specifying claims. Analysis will focus on the first independent claim as representative.
- Independent Claim 1:
- a sleeve body;
- separate clamp means within said sleeve body, biased for automatically grasping a wire and releasably fixing said sleeve body in place on the wire; and
- release means, for temporarily releasing said clamp means to slide and reposition the torquer along the wire.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Sea Dragon" torque device and the "H₂O Torq" torque device (collectively, "the accused products") (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "torque device[s]" used in medical procedures (’868 Patent, col. 1:16-24; Compl. ¶6, ¶9). The pleading alleges these products are manufactured, offered for sale, and sold by the Defendant (’868 Patent, col. 1:16-24; Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide further technical details about the specific design, operation, or market context of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement allegations. The following table summarizes the infringement theory as can be inferred from the general allegations that the accused "torque device[s]" infringe the '868 Patent.
'868 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a sleeve body | The accused products are alleged to be torque devices that necessarily include a body or housing. | ¶9, ¶14 | col. 6:1-2 |
| separate clamp means within said sleeve body, biased for automatically grasping a wire and releasably fixing said sleeve body in place on the wire | The accused products are alleged to contain an internal mechanism that is biased by default to grip a guidewire. | ¶9, ¶14 | col. 6:47-55 |
| and release means, for temporarily releasing said clamp means to slide and reposition the torquer along the wire | The accused products are alleged to contain a mechanism that, when activated by the user, releases the grip to allow repositioning. | ¶9, ¶14 | col. 6:56-60 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations raises the fundamental question of how each limitation of the asserted claims reads on the accused products. The court will need to determine if the "clamp means" and "release means" limitations, which are described with structural detail in the patent (e.g., pivotable members, springs, buttons), are present in the accused products.
- Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the accused products are "biased for automatically grasping a wire," as the patent requires. This implies a default state of gripping that is overcome by user action, a key distinction from prior art that required user action to initiate a grip. The nature and operation of the gripping and releasing mechanisms in the "Sea Dragon" and "H₂O Torq" devices will be the primary factual dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim terms. However, based on the patent's description, the following term may become a focus of the dispute.
- The Term: "biased for automatically grasping a wire"
- Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core inventive concept distinguishing the patent from prior art that required a positive locking action. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused products operate with a default, spring-loaded grip (as described in the patent) versus another type of gripping mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the primary functional difference asserted by the inventor.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the clamp means may include "opposing members biased for mating about the wire" without limiting the specific mechanism, suggesting the term could cover various configurations that achieve a default grip (’868 Patent, col. 2:47-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific embodiments to achieve this function, such as a pivotable member biased by springs (’868 Patent, col. 4:62-65) or a chuck with a circumferential coil spring (’868 Patent, col. 5:18-24). A defendant might argue that "automatically grasping" should be limited to the structures disclosed or their equivalents.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified Defendant of the '868 Patent in May 2001, and Defendant subsequently began selling the accused "Sea Dragon" product in 2007 (Compl. ¶10-11). This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis of the claim for willful and deliberate infringement (Compl. ¶15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of factual proof: given the sparse allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff will need to produce evidence demonstrating that the accused "Sea Dragon" and "H₂O Torq" devices contain the specific "clamp means" and "release means" structures required by the asserted claims.
- A key question for willfulness will be one of timing and intent: what effect does the nearly nine-year period between the alleged 2001 notice and the 2010 filing of the complaint have on the claims for willful infringement and damages, and what evidence exists regarding Defendant's state of mind after being notified of the patent?