Xodus Medical Inc v. G&T Industries

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xodus Medical Inc. (Pennsylvania), Alessio Pigazzi (California), and Glenn Keilar (California)
  • Defendant: G&T Industries, Inc. (Michigan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cipriani & Werner
• Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00415, E.D. Pa., 11/09/2016
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s foam operating room table pads, used for patient positioning, infringe a patent related to viscoelastic patient support systems.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need to safely secure patients during surgical procedures that require steep tilting, such as the Trendelenburg position, while minimizing pressure-related injuries.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Xodus Medical Inc. is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of an earlier patent. The complaint does not mention other prior litigation or administrative proceedings.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-06-01	Earliest Priority Date Claimed for ’876 Patent (Prov. App. 61/654,339)
2015-10-20	U.S. Patent No. 9,161,876 Issues
2016-11-09	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,161,876, “Method of Securing a Patient Onto an Operating Table When the Patient is in the Trendelenburg Position and Apparatus Therefor Including a Kit,” issued October 20, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of keeping a patient from sliding on an operating table when the table is tilted at a steep angle, a position known as the Trendelenburg position. This sliding can disrupt the surgery, and conventional restraints can cause concentrated pressure, leading to nerve and tissue damage. (’876 Patent, col. 2:1-13).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a patient support system centered on a viscoelastic foam pad. When a patient lies on the pad, their body heat and weight cause the material to deform and create a contoured impression. This depression, along with the material's frictional properties, generates holding forces to prevent the patient from sliding. A key feature is the material's "slow rate of recovery," which allows the impression to be maintained, thereby continuing to hold the patient even if they are temporarily lifted or shifted. (’876 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-6).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for patient stabilization that relies on conforming to the patient's body shape rather than solely on external straps, aiming to better distribute pressure and improve safety during procedures requiring steep angulation, such as robotic surgery. (’876 Patent, col. 5:36-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 17 (method), as well as dependent claims 3 and 18. (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26).
• Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus) requires:
  • A pad arrangement for a tiltable medical table, long enough to support a patient’s torso from the thighs to the shoulders.
  • The pad comprises a deformable material.
  • The material is configured to deform under the patient’s torso to form a depression, which provides a “substantial portion of 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 to minimize injury.
• Independent Claim 17 (Method) requires:
  • Positioning a pad arrangement with a deformable material on a tiltable table.
  • Positioning a patient’s torso on the pad, thereby forming a depression.
  • Tilting the table to a desired angle.
  • Holding the patient in position using the depression to provide a “substantial portion of holding forces” while also distributing pressure.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are the STP100, STP100 S, STP200/ S, and STP150 S, each identified as a "foam Trendelenburg O.R. Table Pad." (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 18, 21, 24).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused products are "knockoff" patient positioning systems sold to hospitals for the same purpose as the Plaintiff's product, but at a significantly lower price. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the material composition, physical properties, or precise operation of the accused pads, instead referring to a website for examples. (Compl. ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement in a conclusory manner, stating that the accused products "read on each and every element" of the asserted claims without providing a detailed, element-by-element mapping of accused functionality to claim limitations. (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 19, 22, 25). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the complaint's allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the accused foam pads meet the definitional requirements of the claims. For example, does the depression formed in the accused pads provide a "substantial portion" of the holding force, or is the primary holding mechanism simple friction?
  • Technical Questions: A key question for discovery will be whether the material used in the accused pads has a "rate of recovery sufficiently slow" as required by the claims. This raises the evidentiary question of what testing and expert analysis will show regarding the specific physical and chemical properties of the accused foam material compared to the properties outlined in the ’876 Patent’s specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to distinguishing the claimed invention from generic foam padding or standard memory foam, which might recover too quickly to effectively "hold" a patient's shape and provide the claimed holding force. The definition of "sufficiently slow" will be a critical point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes recovery in functional terms, suggesting that any rate slow enough "to assist in holding the patient in a desired position" could fall within the claim scope. (’876 Patent, col. 2:1-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific, numerical ranges for recovery time, such as "approximately 2-10 seconds for approximately 50 percent to 80 percent recovery." (’876 Patent, col. 2:27-30). A party could argue that "sufficiently slow" should be limited to rates within or near these explicitly disclosed ranges.

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

  • Context and Importance: This term of degree is critical for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires separating the holding force generated by the physical "depression" from the force generated by the material's coefficient of friction. The meaning of "substantial" will determine how much of the holding force must come from the depression itself.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the holding quality is a "combination of the coefficient of friction... and the holding ability of the impression," which may support an argument that "substantial" does not require the depression to be the majority or primary source of the force. (’876 Patent, col. 5:1-6).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes the importance of the impression itself, stating it "may provide the primary holding." (’876 Patent, col. 5:50-53). Figure 5, which illustrates a pronounced impression, could be used to argue that "substantial" requires a physically significant and deep contour, not just a minor surface deformation. (’876 Patent, Fig. 5).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of method claims 17 and 18. The factual basis alleged is that Defendant sells the accused pads to its customer, Prime Medical, "knowing that Prime intends the [pads] to be used in a manner that reads on" the method claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 20, 23, 26).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is "willful and wanton." (Compl. ¶39). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit notice or knowledge, suggesting the willfulness claim is based on knowledge gained from the filing of the lawsuit itself.

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

1. A threshold issue may be one of pleading sufficiency: Given the complaint’s conclusory allegations that the products "read on" the claims without specific factual mapping, a primary question is whether these allegations meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss.
2. The central substantive issue will be one of technical proof and claim construction: Does the accused "foam Trendelenburg O.R. Table Pad" material possess the specific, quantifiable viscoelastic properties required by the patent claims? The case will likely depend on the court’s construction of terms of degree like "substantial portion" and "sufficiently slow," and on competing expert evidence analyzing the physical performance of the accused products.
3. A key question for the indirect infringement claim will be one of intent: Beyond merely selling a product that can be used in an infringing manner, what evidence will emerge to demonstrate that Defendant specifically intended to encourage and instruct its customers to use the pads in the multi-step method recited in claim 17?