Cicas IP LLC v. Stryker Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cicas IP LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Stryker Corporation (Michigan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00295, E.D. Tex., 06/22/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas based on Defendant maintaining a "regular and established business presence" in the district, including a physical office in Tyler, Texas, and the employment of sales and infrastructure personnel who reside and work in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Scopsis ENT Navigation System infringes a patent related to systems and methods for image-guided endoscopic surgery.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using pre-operative volumetric scan data to provide real-time, on-screen visual guidance to a surgeon using an endoscope, enabling more precise navigation to surgical targets that are not directly visible.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint details the '794' Patent's assignment history from the inventor to Stanford University, back to the inventor, to a third party, and ultimately to the Plaintiff. The patent is expired, and Plaintiff seeks damages for past infringement. The complaint alleges willfulness based on the '794 Patent having been cited during the prosecution of one of Defendant's own patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,850,794 - "Endoscopic Targeting Method and System," issued Feb. 1, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: During endoscopic surgery, a surgeon can only see surface structures and may have difficulty locating or accessing a target site hidden from the endoscope's direct view (Compl. ¶20; '794 Patent, col. 1:22-29). The surgeon needs to know in which direction and what distance to advance the tool to reach the target optimally ('794 Patent, col. 1:22-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that integrates pre-operative volumetric scan data (e.g., from a CT scan) with a real-time tracking system for an endoscopic tool ('794 Patent, col. 1:35-45). A computer tracks the tool's position, identifies the target's coordinates from the scan data, and projects graphical "indicia" onto the live video from the endoscope to guide the surgeon ('794 Patent, col. 1:46-52). These indicia can show the direction to a target if it is off-screen or indicate its position and distance when it is within the field of view ('794 Patent, col. 2:61-65, col. 6:35-49).
• Technical Importance: The system provides a form of augmented reality for surgeons, allowing them to effectively "see" a pre-planned target through obscuring tissue, which is intended to increase the precision of minimally invasive procedures (Compl. ¶21-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27, ¶32).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A data file containing volumetric scan data of a patient region that includes a target site.
  • A display device.
  • A movable imaging tool (e.g., an endoscope) that is tracked with respect to a patient coordinate system.
  • A computer that:
    • (i) determines the tool's position/orientation.
    • (ii) identifies the target site's coordinates from the scan data.
    • (iii) projects "indicia" onto the video image that indicate:
      • (a) the target's direction if it is outside the image, and
      • (b) the target's lateral position and the distance to it, if the target is within the image.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Scopsis ENT Navigation System ("Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Scopsis system as a "next-generation solution for navigating functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS)" that offers "highly advanced image guidance and visualization capabilities" (Compl. ¶29).
• The system is alleged to use software to analyze patient anatomy, plan "natural drainage pathways," and, during surgery, overlay these "planned pathways in real-time onto the endoscopic image" using "augmented reality technology" (Compl. ¶29). This functionality is promoted as enabling "minimally invasive, accurate and selective surgery" (Compl. ¶29). The complaint includes a marketing image showing a monitor with an endoscopic view of a nasal cavity, upon which blue circular graphics are superimposed (Compl. ¶29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'794 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the "planned pathways" described as being overlaid by the accused system (Compl. ¶29) meet the definition of "indicia" as used in the patent. The patent's examples depict discrete symbols like arrows or circles representing a point target ('794 Patent, Figs. 4, 5A-C), raising the question of whether a continuous "pathway" can be construed as an "indicium" indicating the "lateral position of the target site."
  • Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on whether the accused system's overlays perform the specific dual function recited in Claim 1(b): indicating both lateral position and distance. The complaint alleges this functionality (Compl. ¶28(o)), but the provided marketing materials do not explicitly state that the overlays convey distance information. The visual evidence shows an overlay but does not, on its own, clarify if or how it represents distance to a target.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "indicia"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement case turns on whether the graphical overlays in the accused system constitute "indicia" with the specific functions required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine if the accused product's "planned pathways" read on the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "a variety of 2-D and 3-D indicia and indicia formats can be constructed to assist the surgeon in accessing the target site" ('794 Patent, col. 6:21-24). This language may support an argument that the term is not limited to the specific arrows and circles shown in the figures.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments consistently describe and depict indicia as discrete symbols (arrows, circles) that identify a single "target site" or point ('794 Patent, Figs. 4, 5A-5C, col. 5:32-43). This could support a narrower construction limited to symbols representing a point-like target, rather than an extended "pathway."

• The Term: "distance between the tool and the target site"

  • Context and Importance: This term requires that the "indicia" convey specific information about the depth or z-axis separation between the endoscope and the target. The infringement allegation's strength depends on demonstrating that the accused system's overlay provides this distance information.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent teaches that the size of the indicia can be "related to the distance between the instrument and the target site" and adjusted according to the "z-axis distance" ('794 Patent, col. 5:28-31, col. 6:50-52). This could support finding infringement if any visual property of the accused overlay (e.g., size, color, thickness) correlates with distance.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific functional relationship where the indicia's size is calculated based on an "error function" related to distance ('794 Patent, col. 5:12-24). A party might argue that the term requires this explicit calculation and representation of z-axis distance, not merely a graphical feature that happens to change as the surgeon moves along a path.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides materials such as "brochures, manuals, [and] instructional documents" that instruct customers on using the accused system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶33). It also alleges contributory infringement by providing material parts of the invention that are not staple articles of commerce and are especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶34).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the '794 Patent. It claims Defendant had actual notice "at least as early as 2013" because the '794 Patent was "cited... in Defendant's own patent file histories including U.S. Patent No. 10,667,868B2" (Compl. ¶35). The complaint includes a screenshot purporting to show this citation history from a patent search tool (Compl. ¶35).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "indicia", which is described in the patent's context as a symbol representing a point-like "target site," be construed to cover the "planned pathways" allegedly overlaid by the accused system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: what technical information do the accused system's overlays actually convey? The case will require evidence demonstrating whether these overlays perform the specific, two-part function required by Claim 1—indicating not only lateral position but also the "distance" to the target.
• The viability of the willful infringement claim will likely depend on whether the citation of the '794 Patent during the prosecution of Defendant's own patent is sufficient to establish the requisite knowledge and intent under the governing legal standard.