DCT

5:20-cv-05659

Baxter Healthcare Corp v. B Braun Medical Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:20-cv-05659, E.D. Pa., 11/10/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b).
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s OMNI® acute renal therapy system infringes fifteen patents related to extracorporeal blood treatment machines, disposable fluid cassettes, and methods of operation.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (CRRT), a form of dialysis used to treat critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, typically in an intensive care unit setting.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that this dispute is a continuation of prior litigation between the parties (Case No. 18-cv-00163, E.D. Pa.), which was resolved via a settlement agreement. Baxter now seeks to rescind that agreement, alleging it was induced by B. Braun’s fraudulent misrepresentations concerning the absence of infringing manufacturing activities in the United States.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-02-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,796,955 Priority Date
2002-09-12 U.S. Patent No. 6,887,214 Priority Date
2003-09-25 U.S. Patent No. 10,102,925 & 10,796,792 Priority Date
2003-12-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,364,604 Priority Date
2004-09-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,796,955 Issued
2005-05-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,887,214 Issued
2005-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 8,926,540 & 10,155,080 Priority Date
2007-06-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,232,418 Issued
2008-01-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,314,554 Issued
2009-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,540,851 Issued
2010-06-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,727,391 Issued
2011-01-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,867,393 Issued
2012-09-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,267,308 Issued
2013-06-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,459,543 Issued
2015-01-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,926,540 Issued
2016-06-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,364,604 Issued
2016-12-06 U.S. Patent No. 9,514,322 Issued
2017-08-24 Accused OMNI® Monitor Date of Manufacture
2017-11-03 Accused OMNI® Device Displayed at Kidney Week Trade Show
2018-01-12 Baxter Files Prior Litigation Against B. Braun
2018-07-23 Settlement Agreement Signed by Baxter and B. Braun
2018-09-01 Accused OMNI® Instructions For Use (Rev. 1.02.00) Released
2018-10-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,102,925 Issued
2018-12-18 U.S. Patent No. 10,155,080 Issued
2020-10-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,796,792 Issued
2020-11-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,796,955 - “Method to control blood and filtrate flowing through an extracorporeal device”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes that partial occlusions in an extracorporeal blood circuit are common occurrences that can delay treatment and require frequent intervention from nurses or other medical professionals (’955 Patent, col. 2:3-11). Existing controllers did not discriminate between minor issues a patient could resolve and more serious problems requiring professional attention (’955 Patent, col. 2:56-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for automatically controlling blood and filtrate flow in response to pressure changes indicative of an occlusion. The system monitors withdrawal and infusion pressures, and upon detecting an occlusion, a controller automatically reduces the blood flow and filtrate flow rates without human intervention (’955 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:23-38). Once the occlusion is alleviated, the controller automatically increases the flow rates back to the desired levels (’955 Patent, col. 6:38-43).
  • Technical Importance: This automated, responsive control system was designed to enhance patient safety and reduce the burden on clinical staff by managing minor occlusions without requiring manual pump adjustments or triggering unnecessary alarms.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶221).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Withdrawing blood from a patient into an extracorporeal circuit, filtering it, and infusing it back to the patient continuously.
    • Monitoring withdrawal and infusion pressure.
    • Detecting an occlusion based on the withdrawal or infusion pressure.
    • In response, a controller automatically reduces blood flow and filtrate flow.
    • Detecting an alleviation of the occlusion.
    • Automatically increasing the blood and filtrate flow after alleviation without a human operator intervening in the operation of the pump.
  • The complaint states it provides a "non-limiting" claim chart, which may suggest an intent to assert other claims later (Compl. ¶221).

U.S. Patent No. 6,887,214 - “Blood pump having a disposable blood passage cartridge with integrated pressure sensors”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background explains that assembling disposable dialysis components from various manufacturers can be complex, requiring high skill from hospital staff and creating risks of leaks, air ingress, and blood clotting at connection points (’214 Patent, col. 3:13-21). Existing integrated sets were noted to have deficiencies, such as interfaces to pressure sensors that were inaccurate or facilitated clot formation (’214 Patent, col. 3:51-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an integrated, disposable cartridge for blood treatment that simplifies setup. The solution features a first cartridge housing for a blood loop and a second, distinct and separate cartridge housing for a filtrate loop (’214 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:2-5). Both housings are detachably mountable to a blood treatment device to engage their respective loops with the machine's blood pump and filtrate pump.
  • Technical Importance: This design aimed to reduce setup complexity and the risk of contamination or clotting by providing a pre-assembled, integrated disposable unit with distinct fluid paths for blood and filtrate.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 25 (Compl. ¶250).
  • Essential elements of claim 25 include:
    • A disposable extracorporeal blood circuit.
    • A blood passage with withdrawal and return ports.
    • A blood filter.
    • A first cartridge housing with an attached blood loop, detachably mountable to a treatment device to engage a blood pump.
    • A second cartridge housing with an attached filtrate loop, wherein the second housing is distinct and separate from the first, and is also detachably mountable to the device to engage a filtrate pump.
  • The complaint states it provides a "non-limiting" claim chart, which may suggest an intent to assert other claims later (Compl. ¶250).

U.S. Patent No. 7,232,418 - “Support element, an integrated module for extracorporeal blood treatment...”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a support element for an integrated blood treatment module designed to simplify assembly and reduce positioning errors of fluid distribution lines (Compl. ¶287; ’418 Patent, Abstract). The support element uses an "axial locator" with an "undercut surface" to hold fluid lines in a fixed position (’418 Patent, col. 2:56-64).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶288).
  • Accused Features: The cartridge housing of the OMNIset® is alleged to be a "support element" that holds tubing axially in place using a component with an "undercut surface" (Compl. ¶¶291-295).

U.S. Patent No. 7,314,554 - “Extracorporeal blood treatment machine”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to an extracorporeal blood treatment machine with distinct blood and fluid circuits, each having lines leading to and from a filtration unit (’554 Patent, Abstract). The machine includes specific infusion line branches connected to the inlet (pre-infusion) and outlet (post-infusion) lines of the blood circuit (Compl. ¶313).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶314).
  • Accused Features: The OMNI® device is alleged to be a blood treatment machine with the claimed blood, fluid, and infusion circuits, including pre- and post-infusion branches (Compl. ¶¶316-321).

U.S. Patent No. 8,267,308 - “Fluid processing medical apparatus and method for setting-up a fluid processing medical apparatus”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for setting up a fluid treatment apparatus using a single, accessible reader (e.g., a barcode scanner) to read information from replaceable components (’308 Patent, Abstract). The reader is distinct from the operating areas where components are installed and can check if a new component is compatible with a selected treatment procedure (Compl. ¶¶443, 445).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 41 is asserted, though the complaint text recites infringement of claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶444, 445).
  • Accused Features: The OMNI® system's use of a barcode scanner to read information from the disposable OMNIset® to verify its suitability for a chosen therapy is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶450-456).

The complaint asserts ten additional patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,540,851; 7,727,391; 7,867,393; 8,459,543; 8,926,540; 9,364,604; 9,514,322; 10,102,925; 10,155,080; and 10,796,792. These patents cover additional aspects of integrated blood treatment modules, fluid circuit configurations, and user interface functionalities for extracorporeal blood treatment machines.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is B. Braun's OMNI® Acute Blood Purification system, which includes the OMNI® monitor, the disposable OMNIset®, and the OMNIfilter® (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The OMNI® system performs Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (CRRT) by extracting a patient's blood, treating it in a hemofilter, and reinfusing it (Compl. ¶¶131, 148). The complaint alleges the system includes a fully pre-connected disposable cassette, the OMNIset®, which is loaded onto the OMNI® monitor (Compl. ¶151). An annotated diagram in the complaint shows the OMNI device and the principle of its treatment circuit (Compl. ¶148, Fig. 3-1).
  • A key operational feature alleged is the use of a barcode scanner on the monitor to read information from the disposable OMNIset® packaging (Compl. ¶¶152, 158). An image in the complaint depicts this scanning process, which is used to automatically load and prime the system and ensure the disposable kit is appropriate for the selected therapy (Compl. ¶152).
  • The complaint positions the OMNI® system as a direct competitor to Baxter's PRISMAFLEX® and PrisMAX® CRRT platforms, alleging that its infringement will result in loss of market share and price erosion for Baxter (Compl. ¶¶244, 245).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,796,955 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a. withdrawing blood from a withdrawal blood vessel in a patient into the extracorporeal circuit, filtering liquid...and infusing the filtered blood... OMNI® receives blood from a patient, removes liquid using the OMNIfilter®, and provides filtered blood back to the patient. ¶¶223, 224 col. 6:23-28
b. monitoring withdrawal and infusion pressure of the blood; OMNI® includes a first pressure monitor for the line from the patient and a second pressure monitor for the line to the patient. ¶¶225-228 col. 6:29-30
c. based on the withdrawal or infusion pressure, detecting an occlusion... OMNI® detects an increase in blood line pressure. ¶230 col. 6:31-33
d. in response to the detection of the occlusion controller automatically reducing blood flow and reducing filtrate flow through the circuit; OMNI® reduces the speed of the blood line pump in response to the increased pressure without user or operator input. ¶231 col. 6:34-38
f. automatically increasing the blood flow and filtrate flow after the occlusion has been alleviated and without a human operator intervening... OMNI® detects a decrease in blood line pressure and increases the pump speed in response without user or operator input. ¶¶232, 233 col. 6:41-44

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the degree of automation required by the term "automatically... without a human operator intervening." The analysis may focus on whether the OMNI® system's response to an alleviated occlusion requires any intermediate user confirmation or action, which could place its operation outside the literal scope of this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the OMNI® system detects an "occlusion" by detecting an "increase in blood line pressure." A technical dispute could arise over whether a generic pressure increase is sufficient to meet the "occlusion" limitation, or if the patent requires detection of a specific type of flow blockage that is functionally distinct from a mere pressure fluctuation.

U.S. Patent No. 6,887,214 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first cartridge housing to which is attached a blood loop of the blood passage...said first cartridge housing is detachably mountable to the blood treatment device to engage the blood loop to the blood pump... The OMNIset® includes a blood loop attached to a cartridge housing. The blood loop is mounted on the surface of the OMNIset® that faces the OMNI® monitor and extends outwardly to engage the monitor's pump. ¶¶257, 259 col. 5:58-65
a second cartridge housing to which is attached a filtrate loop...said second cartridge housing is distinct and separate from the first cartridge housing, and said second cartridge housing is detachably mountable to the device to engage the filtrate loop... The OMNIset® has an effluent loop attached to a cartridge housing that is different from the housing for the blood loop. The housing for the blood loop is separate from the housing for the effluent loop. ¶¶264, 266, 269 col. 6:1-10

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary point of contention will likely be the claim term "distinct and separate from the first cartridge housing." The accused OMNIset® is described as a single, "fully pre-connected" disposable cartridge (Compl. ¶151). The analysis will question whether two regions of a single, integrated plastic molding can be considered "distinct and separate" housings as contemplated by the patent, which may describe physically separable components.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question may arise regarding the structure of the OMNIset®. The complaint alleges two separate housings (Compl. ¶269), but evidence may show a single, unitary molded structure. The physical construction of the accused OMNIset® will be critical to determining if it meets this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’955 Patent

  • The Term: "without a human operator intervening" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's automated nature. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused OMNI® system's response to an alleviated occlusion is fully automatic or if it involves any operator prompts, confirmations, or other interactions that could be construed as "intervening."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's focus on alleviating the workload on nurses and correcting issues "automatically" may support a construction where the system's core response is automated, even if minor notifications are provided to the user (’955 Patent, col. 2:5-11, 40-44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit language "without a human operator intervening in the operation of the pump" could be construed narrowly to forbid any operator interaction related to pump speed after an occlusion is resolved, including acknowledging a prompt before flow rates are restored (’955 Patent, col. 6:42-44).

For the ’214 Patent

  • The Term: "distinct and separate" (Claim 25)
  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on this term. B. Braun may argue its OMNIset® is a single, integrated component, whereas Baxter alleges it contains "distinct and separate" housings for the blood and filtrate loops. The definition will determine whether a unitary, pre-connected disposable cassette can infringe a claim requiring two separate structures.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes an "integrated disposable cartridge" that contains the housings, suggesting the components are meant to function as a single unit when presented to the user, even if they are structurally distinct (’214 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:2-5). This could support a reading where "distinct and separate" refers to functionally separate fluid paths within a single disposable article.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly recites "a first cartridge housing" and "a second cartridge housing," followed by the modifier "distinct and separate." This language, particularly the repetition of "housing," may support a narrower construction requiring two physically non-contiguous, separately identifiable structures that are assembled together to form the final disposable circuit.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have supplied the OMNI® monitor, a substantial component of the patented invention, from the United States to be assembled overseas with the OMNIfilter® and OMNIset® by end users. This is alleged to constitute inducement of infringement and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1)-(2) for multiple asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶237-239, 273-275, 299-301).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for multiple patents, including the ’214 Patent and ’418 Patent (Compl. ¶¶284, 310). The basis for this allegation is the prior litigation between the parties, which Baxter claims provided B. Braun with full knowledge that its activities related to the OMNI® device would infringe Baxter's patents.

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

  • A threshold issue is contractual and procedural: before any technical analysis of infringement, the court must address Baxter's request to rescind the prior settlement agreement. This will likely turn on factual evidence regarding B. Braun's representations about its U.S. manufacturing activities and whether those representations were knowingly false and material to Baxter's agreement to settle.
  • A core technical issue will be one of structural interpretation: for patents directed to device hardware (e.g., ’214, ’418, ’393 Patents), the case will likely focus on whether the components of the single, integrated OMNIset® disposable can be construed to meet claim limitations requiring "distinct and separate" housings or multiple "connectors."
  • A key operational question will be one of functional precision: for patents directed to methods of operation and user interfaces (e.g., ’955, ’308, ’604 Patents), the analysis will likely center on whether the accused OMNI® system's automated setup and response features perform the exact sequence of steps required by the claims, particularly concerning the degree of automation and the specific information conveyed to the user.