DCT
5:24-cv-10854
Endobotics, LLC v. Flexdex, Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Endobotics, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Flexdex, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bochner PLLC
- Case Identification: 5:24-cv-10854, E.D. Mich., 04/02/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant resides in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s AXIUS line of surgical instruments infringes three patents related to mechanisms for providing enhanced dexterity and control in minimally invasive surgical tools.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns manually operated laparoscopic and endoscopic instruments designed to give surgeons more intuitive control over the instrument's tip, overcoming the restrictive "fulcrum effect" at the point of incision.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. The three asserted patents share a common priority date and are part of the same patent family.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-10-30 | Earliest Priority Date for ’650, ’513, and ’582 Patents |
| 2006-12-12 | U.S. Patent No. 7,147,650 Issued |
| 2008-03-04 | U.S. Patent No. 7,338,513 Issued |
| 2008-04-29 | U.S. Patent No. 7,364,582 Issued |
| 2024-04-02 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,147,650 - Surgical Instrument (issued December 12, 2006)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty surgeons face when using conventional endoscopic and laparoscopic instruments, noting their "lack of dexterity" and the "fulcrum effect" at the incision site, which complicates common tasks like suturing and fine dissection (’650 Patent, col. 1:9-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a surgical instrument where a surgeon's hand movements at a proximal control handle are replicated by a tool at the distal end of an elongated shaft. This is achieved by coupling both the handle and the tool to the shaft via "bendable motion members," which are linked in such a way that the handle's motion causes a corresponding, and potentially scaled, motion at the tool. (’650 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-47).
- Technical Importance: This design sought to provide surgeons with more intuitive, dextrous control over the instrument tip, mimicking the natural movements of the surgeon's hand inside the patient's body during minimally invasive procedures (’650 Patent, col. 1:25-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 4 (’650 Patent, col. 17:4-34; Compl. ¶15).
- Essential elements of claim 4 include:
- An elongated instrument shaft with proximal and distal ends.
- A tool at the distal end and a control handle at the proximal end.
- A "first movable member" coupling the tool to the shaft and a "second movable member" coupling the handle to the shaft.
- The configuration causes handle movement via the second movable member to result in "attendant movement" of the tool via the first movable member.
- At least one of the movable members is a "bendable motion member."
- The "maximum transverse cross-sectional dimension" of the second movable member is different from that of the first.
- The tool movement is in the "same direction" as the control handle movement.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶15).
U.S. Patent No. 7,338,513 - Surgical Instrument (issued March 4, 2008)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’650 Patent, the ’513 Patent addresses the lack of dexterity in minimally invasive surgical instruments that makes common surgical tasks challenging (’513 Patent, col. 1:30-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a surgical instrument that uses proximal and distal "bendable members" to couple a handle and a tool to an elongated shaft. Motion at the handle is translated to the tool by an "actuation means" extending between the two members. A distinct feature is the inclusion of a "rotation knob" adjacent to the handle, allowing a surgeon to manually rotate the tool about its axis independently of the bending motion. (’513 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-10).
- Technical Importance: The addition of a dedicated rotation knob provides the surgeon with another degree of freedom, separating the tool's rotational control from its articulation, which can enhance precision during complex maneuvers (’513 Patent, col. 2:5-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’513 Patent, col. 21:1-25; Compl. ¶37).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- An elongated instrument shaft with a tool at its distal end and a control handle at its proximal end.
- A "distal bendable member" coupling the shaft to the tool.
- A "proximal bendable member" coupling the shaft to the handle.
- An "actuation means" extending between the members to couple the motion of the proximal member to the distal member.
- A "rotation knob" adjacent to and rotatable relative to the control handle, which causes a corresponding rotation of the tool about its distal tool axis.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶37).
U.S. Patent No. 7,364,582 - Surgical Instrument (issued April 29, 2008)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the same problem of dexterity in minimally invasive surgery (’582 Patent, col. 1:12-32). The patented solution involves a surgical instrument with a tool and handle coupled to a shaft via proximal and distal "bendable members," where an actuation mechanism couples the motion of the proximal member to the distal member. A key distinction claimed is that the proximal and distal bendable members have different "maximum transverse cross-sectional dimension[s]" (’582 Patent, Abstract; Claim 41).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 41 (Compl. ¶58).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the AXIUS products' structure, including its elongated shaft (Compl. ¶61), distal tool (Compl. ¶62), control handle (Compl. ¶63), distal and proximal bendable members of different dimensions (Compl. ¶¶64-65), and the actuation means linking their motion (Compl. ¶66).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are instruments in Defendant’s "AXIUS" product line, including model numbers FD-335 ND, 8ND1M, and 8ND1L (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The AXIUS products are described as surgical instruments comprising a handle assembly, an elongated shaft, and a tool at the distal end (Compl. ¶¶18-20). The complaint includes a photograph of the AXIUS product, which shows a handle assembly that appears to be worn on a surgeon's wrist and hand (Compl. ¶13). The allegations and accompanying visuals indicate that movement of the control handle causes a corresponding, articulated movement of the tool at the instrument's tip (Compl. ¶¶23, 25). The complaint does not provide specific details on the products' market positioning beyond identifying them as surgical instruments offered for sale in the United States (Compl. ¶2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
7,147,650 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an elongated instrument shaft having proximal and distal ends | The Accused Products include an elongated instrument shaft with proximal and distal ends. The complaint provides an image showing the full instrument and shaft (Compl. ¶18). | ¶18 | col. 4:47-50 |
| a tool disposed from the distal end of the instrument shaft | The Accused Products include a tool, such as a grasper, disposed from the distal end of the shaft. The complaint includes a close-up image of the tool (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 4:51-53 |
| a control handle disposed from the proximal end of the instrument shaft | The Accused Products include a control handle at the proximal end of the shaft. | ¶20 | col. 4:48-50 |
| said tool being coupled to the distal end of said elongated instrument shaft via a first movable member | The tool is coupled to the shaft's distal end via a first movable member. The complaint provides a close-up image identifying this member (Compl. ¶21). | ¶21 | col. 2:13-15 |
| said control handle coupled to the proximal end of said elongated instrument shaft via a second movable member | The control handle is coupled to the shaft's proximal end via a second movable member. An image in the complaint identifies this component (Compl. ¶22). | ¶22 | col. 2:15-17 |
| movement of said control handle...causes attendant movement of said tool | Movement of the control handle via the second movable member is alleged to cause attendant movement of the tool via the first movable member. | ¶23 | col. 2:17-20 |
| wherein at least one of said first and second members comprises a bendable motion member | At least one of the first and second members is alleged to be a bendable motion member. The complaint provides an image showing the first member bending (Compl. ¶24). | ¶24 | col. 4:60-65 |
| wherein the maximum transverse cross-sectional dimension of the second movable member is different than that of the first movable member | The second movable member is alleged to have a different maximum transverse cross-sectional dimension than the first movable member. | ¶22 | col. 2:17-20 |
| wherein the tool movement...is in the same direction of the control handle movement | The tool movement is alleged to be in the same direction as the control handle movement. The complaint provides a visual representation of this corresponding motion (Compl. ¶25). | ¶25 | col. 17:28-34 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's articulated joint mechanism, shown in the complaint's visual evidence (Compl. ¶21), qualifies as a "bendable motion member" as that term is used in the patent. The patent's specification describes embodiments like "ribbed construction" and "bellows construction" (’650 Patent, Figs. 5A-5B) and defines the term as a "single unitary structure...without any sharp breaks or angularity" (’650 Patent, col. 5:1-6), which raises the question of whether a series of distinct pivoting links falls within the claim's scope.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the "maximum transverse cross-sectional dimension" of the proximal movable member is different from the distal one (Compl. ¶22). A potential point of contention could be how this dimension is measured on the accused product's complex handle and tool assemblies and whether the measured difference is legally significant.
7,338,513 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an elongated instrument shaft having proximal and distal ends | The Accused Products include an elongated instrument shaft. | ¶40 | col. 3:51-54 |
| a tool disposed from the distal end of the instrument shaft and supported extending along a distal tool axis | The Accused Products include a tool at the distal end supported along a distal tool axis. | ¶41 | col. 3:51-54 |
| a distal bendable member for coupling the distal end of said elongated instrument shaft to said tool | The Accused Products include a distal bendable member coupling the shaft to the tool. The complaint provides an image identifying this member (Compl. ¶43). | ¶43 | col. 3:55-57 |
| a proximal bendable member for coupling the proximal end of said elongated instrument shaft to said handle | The Accused Products include a proximal bendable member coupling the shaft to the handle. The complaint identifies this member in an image (Compl. ¶44). | ¶44 | col. 3:57-59 |
| actuation means extending between said distal and proximal bendable members for coupling motion | The Accused Products include an actuation means that allegedly extends between the distal and proximal members to couple their motion and control tool positioning. | ¶45 | col. 3:59-63 |
| and a rotation knob adjacent the control handle and rotatable...for causing a corresponding rotation of the tool | The Accused Products include a rotation knob adjacent to the control handle that is alleged to cause a corresponding rotation of the tool. The complaint provides a close-up image of a user manipulating this knob (Compl. ¶46). | ¶46 | col. 3:63-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: As with the ’650 Patent, the proper construction of "bendable member" will be a key issue. Additionally, the scope of "actuation means" raises a question. The patent discloses cables as the structure for this means (’513 Patent, col. 5:2-6). The dispute may center on whether the mechanical linkage in the accused product is structurally equivalent to the disclosed cables.
- Technical Questions: What specific components of the accused product constitute the "proximal bendable member"? The complaint points to the entire wrist-mounted handle assembly (Compl. ¶44). A defendant may argue that this assembly does not function as a single "bendable member" in the manner claimed by the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "bendable motion member" (Asserted in claims of ’650, ’513, and ’582 patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the patented technology, defining the mechanism that allows for articulated movement. Its construction will be critical because the complaint’s visual evidence suggests the accused product uses a series of pivoting links rather than a unitary flexible structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will likely determine whether there is literal infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention in the ’650 Patent refers generally to "pivoted or bendable motion members," which may suggest the patentee viewed these as alternatives or overlapping concepts (’650 Patent, col. 2:39). The specification also states that "a variety of geometries may be employed for the bending motion member construction" (’650 Patent, col. 6:10-12), potentially supporting a construction not limited to the specific embodiments.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the ’650 Patent explicitly defines "bendable motion members" as an "instrument element...capable of being constrained by tension or compression forces to deviate from a straight line to a curved configuration without any sharp breaks or angularity" and as having a "single unitary structure" (’650 Patent, col. 5:1-6). The primary disclosed embodiments are "ribbed construction" and "bellows construction," which are distinct from pivoting joints (’650 Patent, Figs. 5A-5B). This may support a narrower construction that excludes multi-link pivotal joints.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents-in-suit. The inducement allegations are based on Defendant allegedly providing instructions, promotional materials, and videos on its websites that explain how to use the AXIUS products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶27-29, 48-50, 68-70). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Defendant offers for sale a material part of the inventions that is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶¶30, 51, 71).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The basis for these allegations is knowledge of the patents "at least as of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶35, 56, 76). This suggests a theory of post-suit willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "bendable motion member," which the patent specifications describe as a unitary structure that curves "without any sharp breaks or angularity," be construed to cover the multi-link, pivoting-joint mechanism that appears to be used in the accused AXIUS instruments? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the internal mechanism of the AXIUS product constitute an "actuation means extending between" the proximal and distal articulating sections, as required by claim 1 of the ’513 patent, particularly when compared to the patent’s disclosure of a cable-based system? Discovery into the precise mechanics of the accused device will be central to resolving this issue.