DCT

2:17-cv-00581

Xodus Medical Inc v. Allen Medical Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00581, W.D. Pa., 05/04/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "Allen® Steep Trend Pad" infringes a patent related to a viscoelastic foam pad for securing a patient on an operating table during inclined surgical procedures.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the need to safely secure patients during surgeries in the Trendelenburg position (head-down tilt) to prevent sliding and pressure-related injuries.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent has undergone two separate ex parte reexamination proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The first reexamination resulted in the issuance of new claims, and the second confirmed the patentability of all claims, including the one originally asserted in this complaint. This history may suggest the patent's resilience to validity challenges based on prior art.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-06-01 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,511,314
2013-08-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,511,314 Issued
2013-12-06 First Reexamination Request Filed
2017-01-19 Second Reexamination Request Filed
2017-04-25 First Reexamination Certificate (C1) Issued
2017-05-04 Complaint Filed
2018-03-12 Second Reexamination Certificate (C2) Issued

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,511,314 - "Method of Securing a Patient Onto an Operating Table When the Patient Is in the Trendelenburg Position and Apparatus Therefor Including a Kit"

  • Issued: August 20, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: During medical procedures that require a patient to be tilted, such as in the Trendelenburg position, there is a risk of the patient sliding on the operating table. Conventional methods of securing a patient can create concentrated pressure points, potentially leading to nerve damage or other injuries ('314 Patent, col. 1:38-57; col. 2:6-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a patient support arrangement featuring a pad made of a deformable, viscoelastic material. When a patient lies on the pad, their body forms an impression or depression in the material. This form-fitting depression, combined with the material's slow rate of recovery and frictional properties, provides a "holding force" that helps secure the patient and prevent sliding, while also distributing pressure more evenly across the body to minimize injury ('314 Patent, Abstract; col. 17:15-44; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: The technology proposes using the material properties of the pad itself as a primary mechanism for securing the patient, potentially reducing the reliance on restrictive straps or braces that can cause harm ('314 Patent, col. 2:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’314 Patent recites the following essential elements:
    • A pad configured for a tiltable medical procedure table, long enough to support a patient's torso from thighs to shoulders.
    • The pad comprises a "deformable material."
    • The material is configured to be deformed by the patient's torso to form a "depression," which provides a "substantial portion of the holding forces" when the table is tilted.
    • The material has a "rate of recovery sufficiently slow to maintain a depression" after a change in force.
    • The pad is configured to "distribute pressure forces" to minimize injuries.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Allen® Steep Trend Pad" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "markets and sells" the accused product (Compl. ¶12). However, it does not provide any specific details regarding the product's material composition, technical operation, or functional characteristics. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis. It makes a conclusory allegation that the accused product infringes at least Claim 1 without mapping specific product features to the elements of the claim (Compl. ¶14). The analysis must therefore focus on the likely points of contention that will emerge based on the claim language.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may concern the meaning of "a depression...which provides a substantial portion of the holding forces" ('314 Patent, col. 18:18-24). The parties may contest what quantum of force qualifies as "substantial" and whether this force must arise from the shape of the depression itself, as distinct from general surface friction.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the material of the "Allen® Steep Trend Pad" actually possesses the functional properties required by the claim. Specifically, does it have a "rate of recovery sufficiently slow to maintain a depression" ('314 Patent, col. 18:33-38)? The complaint provides no evidence to support this, suggesting that expert testing and discovery will be critical to resolving this issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a depression...which provides a substantial portion of the holding forces" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's mechanism. Its construction will determine whether infringement requires a distinct "form-fitting" or "cupping" function that physically holds the patient, or if a pad that relies primarily on high-friction properties could also infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiffs may argue that "substantial portion" does not require a majority of the force, but any amount that is more than incidental. They may point to the claim's general functional language about holding a patient in a desired position ('314 Patent, col. 18:20-24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants could argue that the term requires the depression itself to be a primary source of restraint. They may cite the specification's emphasis on the pad shaping itself to the patient's body and the depiction of a clear impression in Figure 5 as evidence that the "holding" is distinct from mere friction ('314 Patent, col. 4:64-67; Fig. 5).

The Term: "rate of recovery sufficiently slow to maintain a depression" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term distinguishes the claimed invention from a simple elastic cushion that would rebound instantly. The definition of "sufficiently slow" will be critical to determining the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiffs may argue the term should be interpreted functionally: any rate of recovery that is slow enough to help hold the patient during a typical repositioning or surgical procedure meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that the specific numerical examples of recovery times provided in the specification (e.g., "approximately 2-10 seconds for approximately 50 percent to 80 percent recovery") should inform or even limit the scope of this term, establishing a specific technical range that an accused product must meet ('314 Patent, col. 2:26-36).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a bare allegation of "contributorily infringing and/or inducing infringement" but offers no specific factual predicate, such as the existence of instructional materials or user manuals that direct others to use the accused product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶271).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is "willful and wanton" but does not plead any facts to support this, such as pre-suit knowledge of the '314 patent or its infringement (Compl. ¶15).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the key functional limitations of Claim 1? The case may turn on whether terms like "substantial portion of the holding forces" and "rate of recovery sufficiently slow" are construed broadly based on their function or are limited by the specific embodiments and numerical ranges described in the patent's specification.
  2. A key challenge will be one of evidentiary proof: given the lack of technical detail in the complaint, the plaintiff must produce extrinsic evidence, likely through expert testing and testimony, to demonstrate that the accused "Allen® Steep Trend Pad" possesses the specific viscoelastic properties and performs the functions (e.g., forming a maintained depression that provides holding forces) as required by the asserted claim.