DCT

3:04-cv-00029

Smith & Nephew Inc v. Arthrex Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:04-cv-00029, D. Or., 05/10/2004
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Arthrex, Inc. residing within the judicial district and co-plaintiff John O. Hayhurst, M.D. being an individual residing in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant infringes a patent directed to methods for anchoring soft tissue to bone using a deformable suture anchor during surgical procedures.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to arthroscopic surgery, a minimally invasive procedure, and specifically provides a method for reattaching tissues such as ligaments or tendons to bone.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Smith & Nephew is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit, which is owned by inventor and co-plaintiff John O. Hayhurst. The patent has been the subject of multiple ex parte reexamination proceedings subsequent to the filing of this complaint, resulting in the confirmation of some claims and the cancellation of others, which may narrow the scope of infringement arguments through prosecution history estoppel.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1982-05-20 '557 Patent Priority Date
1997-02-11 '557 Patent Issue Date
2004-05-10 Complaint Filing Date
2009-06-09 First Reexamination Certificate (C1) Issued
2014-12-05 Second Reexamination Certificate (C2) Issued
2017-11-13 Third Reexamination Certificate (C3) Issued, canceling claims

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,601,557 - “ANCHORING AND MANIPULATING TISSUE”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,601,557, issued February 11, 1997.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the disadvantages of using conventional medical clamps for manipulating tissue during arthroscopic surgery, noting they can slip, interfere with other instruments, and are limited in their range of motion by the incision location ('557 Patent, col. 1:19-34). It also notes that reattaching torn tissue to bone can be complex and traumatic ('557 Patent, col. 1:35-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and apparatus for anchoring tissue to bone using an anchor member with an attached suture ('557 Patent, col. 1:60-64). A key embodiment involves a deformable anchor member that can be compressed to fit into a pre-drilled hole in a bone. Once inserted, the anchor is designed to expand back towards its relaxed state, causing its legs to bear against or dig into the surrounding bone, thereby locking it in place and providing a secure fixation point for the suture ('557 Patent, col. 2:51-68; Fig. 17).
  • Technical Importance: The patented method claims to provide a "relatively compact and easy to use apparatus" that overcomes the problems of conventional clamps and allows for secure tissue reattachment with less trauma than more invasive surgical procedures ('557 Patent, col. 1:44-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. The independent claims of the patent that survived reexamination are Claims 1 and 6.

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • forming a hole in the bone;
    • attaching a suture to a member;
    • lodging the member within the hole by pressing the member with attached suture into the hole; and
    • attaching tissue to the suture so that the tissue is secured against the bone.
  • Independent Claim 6:
    • providing a deformable member having a width dimension "D";
    • attaching a suture to the member;
    • forming a hole in a bone in a manner such that the hole has a diameter that is not greater than the width dimension "D"; and
    • inserting the member into the hole with the member oriented such that the member lodges within the hole in the absence of any manipulation of the member other than inserting the member into the hole.

The complaint is silent on the assertion of any dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The amended complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It makes a general allegation that "Defendant Arthrex has infringed the '557 patent" (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of infringement without identifying an accused instrumentality or mapping any of its specific features to the elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶6). Therefore, a claim chart cannot be constructed based on the allegations in the complaint. Figure 17 from the patent attached as Exhibit A depicts a cross-section of the anchor member (80) deployed within a hole (100) in bone (96), with its legs (86) expanded to engage the bone beneath the cortical layer (97). An infringement analysis would require evidence that an accused Arthrex method involves a functionally similar anchor being deployed in this manner.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: As the complaint lacks specificity, a threshold issue for the court will be whether discovery yields evidence of an Arthrex product or method that practices every step of an asserted claim.
  • Technical Question: A likely point of dispute will be whether any accused method performs the claimed step of "inserting the member into the hole with the member oriented such that the member lodges within the hole in the absence of any manipulation of the member other than inserting the member into the hole" as required by Claim 6. The meaning of "lodges" and the scope of the negative limitation "in the absence of any manipulation" will be central to this inquiry.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "resiles against the portion of the bone that defines the hole"

(from confirmed Claim 2, which depends from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the locking mechanism of the anchor. The definition of "resiles" will determine the type and degree of expansion required to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether an accused anchor's expansion mechanism meets this functional requirement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself suggests a general springing back or returning to a natural shape, which could cover any anchor that expands to create a secure fit within the bone hole ('557 Patent, col. 11:19-21).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments where the anchor's legs "bear upon the bone" and the sharp edges "dig into the bone to secure the anchor" ('557 Patent, col. 9:43-49). A party could argue that "resiles" should be limited to this specific action of digging into and lodging beneath the cortical bone layer, as depicted in Figure 17.

The Term: "in the absence of any manipulation of the member other than inserting the member into the hole"

(from Claim 6)

  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation distinguishes the claimed method as being simple and self-actuating once insertion begins. The definition of "manipulation" is critical to the scope of this claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Favoring Patentee): The patent describes using an insertion tool to "expel" the anchor from a needle into the bone hole ('557 Patent, col. 9:38-42). A patentee might argue "manipulation" refers to subsequent, separate actions like twisting or setting the anchor after it has been placed, and that the use of a single-action insertion tool does not constitute "manipulation."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Favoring Accused Infringer): An accused infringer could argue that the use of any tool to deform, carry, and then "expel" the anchor is itself a form of "manipulation" beyond simple "inserting," and that the claim is therefore limited to methods where the anchor is placed without such mechanical assistance.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of contributory and induced infringement without pleading any specific supporting facts, such as the provision of instructions or components with the intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶6).

Willful Infringement

  • The willfulness allegation is based on the assertion that "defendant Arthrex has had knowledge of the '557 patent" (Compl. ¶7). This suggests a theory of pre-suit knowledge, though no facts detailing the source or timing of this alleged knowledge are provided.

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

  • A foundational evidentiary question will be one of infringing conduct: Given the lack of specificity in the pleadings, the case will first depend on whether discovery uncovers any Arthrex product or method that can be shown to practice every step of the asserted method claims.
  • A core issue will be one of claim scope: The viability of the infringement case will likely turn on the construction of key functional terms. Can the "automatic lodging" required by Claim 6 ("in the absence of any manipulation... other than inserting") be construed to cover methods that use complex insertion tools, or is it limited to a simpler, unaided placement?
  • A key procedural question will be the impact of reexamination: How will the post-filing cancellation of numerous claims during multiple reexaminations affect the asserted claims' scope under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, potentially precluding infringement arguments that might otherwise have been available?