DCT

1:19-cv-10303

Cochlear Ltd v. Med El Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-10303, D. Mass., 02/18/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Massachusetts because the defendant is incorporated and resides in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SYNCHRONY cochlear implant system infringes three U.S. patents related to the design of implant magnet systems and methods for securing implantable devices to bone.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns cochlear implants, specifically mechanical and surgical features designed to ensure stability, MRI compatibility, and safe removal of internal components.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement of the ’676 and ’702 patents on December 5, 2018, prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-04-09 Priority Date for ’676 and ’702 Patents
2003-04-17 Priority Date for ’141 Patent
2013-05-23 MED-EL announces offer including RONDO audio processors
2014-12-11 FDA approves Defendant's SONNET Audio Processor
2015-01-23 MED-EL announces FDA clearance for Synchrony Implant
2015-03-24 First reported U.S. implantation of SYNCHRONY system
2015-09-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,144,676 issues
2018-02-06 U.S. Patent No. 9,884,141 issues
2018-05-17 FDA approves Defendant's RONDO 2 Audio Processor
2018-08-28 U.S. Patent No. 10,058,702 issues
2018-12-05 Plaintiff provides notice of infringement to Defendant
2019-02-18 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,144,676 - "Implant Magnet System," Issued September 29, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the technical problem of implanted magnets in cochlear implant recipients who need to undergo Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The strong magnetic fields of an MRI can exert torque on the implant’s magnet, potentially causing dislodgement, patient discomfort, and significant distortion of the resulting medical image (’676 Patent, col. 2:1-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this problem with a medical device featuring an implantable component that mechanically secures the internal magnet. One embodiment describes a "chassis" that restrains the magnet and sits within a flexible silicone body; the silicone extends into holes in the chassis, creating a rivet-like interlock that secures the assembly (’676 Patent, col. 7:6-12; Claim 1). Another embodiment discloses a "mounting" with "recesses" arrayed around the magnet, which is also secured within a silicone body (’676 Patent, Claim 15).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a mechanical means to stabilize the internal magnet of a cochlear implant, with the goal of enabling safer and more effective MRI procedures for recipients (’676 Patent, col. 6:5-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 15 (’676 Patent, col. 11:1-12, 11:47-col. 12:14; Compl. ¶32).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a medical device comprising:
    • An implantable component with a first magnet and a silicone body.
    • A "chassis" secured in the component to restrain the magnet's movement.
    • The chassis includes holes and sits at least partially within the silicone body.
    • Silicone from the body extends into the holes to secure the chassis.
  • Independent Claim 15 recites a medical device comprising:
    • An external component with a first magnet and an implantable component with a second magnet for alignment.
    • The implantable component includes a "mounting" for the second magnet.
    • The mounting has a body with a "plurality of recesses" arrayed about the magnet.
    • The implantable component includes a silicone body, with the mounting sitting at least partially within it.
    • Silicone from the body extends into the recesses, securing the mounting.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims 2-3, 8-9, 11, and 13-21 (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 9,884,141 - "Implantable Device Having Osseointegrating Protuberances," Issued February 6, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in securely fixing implantable devices to bone. Prior art methods, such as drilling a well in the skull, are described as time-consuming and potentially risky, while using suture ties may not be strong enough to prevent the implant from shifting upon impact (’141 Patent, col. 1:32-66).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an implantable device designed for fixation through osseointegration—the process of direct bone growth onto an implant surface. The device features at least one "stud" with a "substantially smooth shaft" extending from the housing to abut the patient's bone, which is intended to encourage bone to bond with the stud over time, securing the implant without the need for screws or a precisely drilled well (’141 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:25-30).
  • Technical Importance: This technology offered a method for anchoring an implant to bone that aimed to be less invasive than drilling a well while providing greater long-term stability than sutures (’141 Patent, col. 1:47-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’141 Patent, col. 9:1-13; Compl. ¶38).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites an implantable device for mounting to bone, comprising:
    • A housing with a surface portion configured to abut the bone.
    • At least one "stud" extending from the housing surface.
    • The stud is adapted to abut the patient's bone.
    • The stud has a "substantially smooth shaft."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims 8 and 16 (Compl. ¶38).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,058,702

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,058,702, "Implant Magnet System," Issued August 28, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the issue of MRI compatibility by claiming a surgical method for removing the magnet from a cochlear implant. The claimed method involves accessing the implanted component through an incision, inserting a tool to position it underneath the "skull facing side of the magnet apparatus," and removing the magnet apparatus while the main implant component remains in the recipient (’702 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:8-19).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10-12, with a focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant indirectly infringes this method patent by actively inducing surgeons to perform the claimed removal procedure on the SYNCHRONY Implant System (Compl. ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "SYNCHRONY Implant System," which includes the Synchrony Implant and associated external audio processors such as the SONNET, RONDO, and RONDO 2 (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The SYNCHRONY system is a cochlear implant solution that the complaint identifies as a direct competitor to Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶6). The complaint highlights specific technical features relevant to the patents-in-suit, based on Defendant's press releases. It is alleged that the SYNCHRONY implant's magnet "freely rotates and self-aligns" to reduce torque during MRI scans (Compl. ¶8). Further, the complaint notes the implant allegedly features a "polymer stiffening ring within the silicone implant body to further secure the magnet housing" and that the magnet can be "removed from the bottom side of the implant" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint also alleges the implant uses "titanium fixation pins for securing the placement of the implant" (Compl. ¶9). An image provided in the complaint shows the general configuration of the Synchrony Implant, including its main body and electrode array (Compl. p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’676 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an implantable component having a second magnet The accused SYNCHRONY Implant contains a magnet. ¶8 col. 7:46-51
the implantable component includes a mounting for the second magnet, the mounting including a body having a plurality of recesses arrayed about the second magnet The SYNCHRONY Implant is alleged to have a "polymer stiffening ring" that secures the magnet housing; this ring is alleged to be the claimed "mounting" with "recesses." ¶8 col. 7:3-12
the implantable component includes a silicone body The SYNCHRONY Implant has a "silicone implant body." ¶8 col. 7:6-9
wherein the mounting sits at least partially within the silicone body of the implantable component The polymer stiffening ring is described as being "within the silicone implant body." ¶8 col. 6:46-49
and wherein silicone of the silicone body extends into recesses, thereby securing the mounting to the silicone body The complaint alleges infringement of this claim, which requires this feature, though it does not provide specific factual allegations detailing how the silicone extends into recesses in the accused device. ¶32 col. 7:6-12
  • Identified Points of Contention: A primary technical question will be whether the accused SYNCHRONY implant's "polymer stiffening ring" (Compl. ¶8) constitutes the claimed "mounting" with "recesses." The infringement analysis will likely require evidence detailing the precise structure of this ring and how it interacts with the surrounding "silicone implant body" to determine if it meets the claim limitation requiring silicone to extend into recesses to secure the mounting.

’141 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a housing including a surface having an abutting portion configured to abut the bone The SYNCHRONY Implant has a housing designed to be implanted against a patient's bone. ¶9 col. 5:6-9
at least one stud extending from the surface of the housing The complaint alleges that the SYNCHRONY Implant uses "titanium fixation pins" which are alleged to be the claimed "studs." ¶9 col. 7:8-13
the at least one stud being adapted to abut the patient's bone The "titanium fixation pins" are alleged to be for "securing the placement of the implant" against bone. ¶9 col. 7:47-51
and the at least one stud having a substantially smooth shaft The complaint alleges infringement of this claim, which requires this feature, but does not provide specific allegations regarding the surface texture of the accused "titanium fixation pins." ¶38 col. 7:47-51
  • Identified Points of Contention: The infringement analysis for the ’141 Patent raises questions of both claim scope and fact. First, a scope question is whether the accused "titanium fixation pins" fall within the meaning of the term "stud" as used in the patent. Second, a factual question is whether those pins possess a "substantially smooth shaft" as required by the claim. The complaint does not provide evidence regarding the surface characteristics of the pins.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the ’676 Patent: "recesses"

  • The Term: "recesses" (from claim 15)
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the claim requires silicone to extend into these recesses to achieve the patented method of securing the magnet mounting. The infringement case against the "polymer stiffening ring" of the accused device (Compl. ¶8) will depend on whether that ring has structures that can be construed as "recesses." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the structural requirements for the interlocking mechanism.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses embodiments using "slots" and "holes" to secure a mounting ring, suggesting that "recesses" could be interpreted broadly to cover various types of indentations, apertures, or cavities, not just blind holes (’676 Patent, col. 6:36-37, col. 7:4-6).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict distinct, geometrically defined structures (e.g., recessed portions 25 in Fig. 2a) that engage with corresponding parts or are designed for silicone to flow through and form a rivet-like lock. A party could argue the term requires a structure specifically configured for this mechanical interlock, rather than any incidental surface irregularity.

Term from the ’141 Patent: "substantially smooth shaft"

  • The Term: "substantially smooth shaft" (from claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the claimed invention from other fixation means, such as threaded screws that mechanically grip bone. The allegation that Defendant's "titanium fixation pins" infringe hinges on whether they have this characteristic. The term's construction will determine the boundary between the patented osseointegration-based fixation and other forms of mechanical fixation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The presence of the modifier "substantially" suggests the shaft does not need to be perfectly polished or devoid of all texture. A party might argue the term simply means lacking features like threads or aggressive ribbing that are primarily for mechanical interdigitation, thereby distinguishing it from a conventional screw.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s solution is explicitly tied to promoting osseointegration (’141 Patent, col. 1:21-25). A party could therefore argue that "substantially smooth" must be construed in light of this function, meaning a surface finish that is known or intended to facilitate direct bone growth, as opposed to a surface that relies on friction or minor texture for initial grip.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant actively induces infringement of the ’676 and ’141 patents by its customers and users (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 39). For the ’702 method patent, the core allegation is indirect infringement, claiming Defendant induces surgeons to perform the patented removal method by providing the SYNCHRONY system and, presumably, associated instructions or training (Compl. ¶44).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of all three patents-in-suit. For the ’676 and ’702 patents, willfulness is based on Defendant's alleged knowledge since at least the December 5, 2018 notice letter (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 45). For the ’141 Patent, the complaint alleges knowledge "prior to the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶40).

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

  • A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused SYNCHRONY implant’s "polymer stiffening ring" possess the "recesses" required by the ’676 Patent, and does the device achieve magnet fixation through the claimed mechanism of silicone extending into those recesses? The outcome may depend on detailed factual evidence of the accused device's construction.
  • A second key issue will involve both definitional scope and factual characterization: Do the "titanium fixation pins" of the accused device meet the ’141 Patent’s claim requirements of a "stud" with a "substantially smooth shaft"? This question will likely turn on how the court construes these terms and on factual evidence regarding the physical characteristics of the pins.
  • A third key question will be one of induced infringement: For the ’702 method patent, the inquiry will focus on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that Defendant, through its user manuals, surgical guides, or other materials, specifically instructed or encouraged surgeons to perform the patented steps for magnet removal with the requisite intent to cause infringement.