2:24-cv-00334
Distribution Intelligence Systems LLC v. Stryker Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Distribution Intelligence Systems, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Stryker Corporation (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00334, E.D. Tex., 05/07/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a "regular and established business presence" in the district, including a place of business in Tyler, Texas, and employs personnel such as a "Mako Product Specialist" within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s REELX STT Knotless Anchor System, a medical device for arthroscopic surgery, infringes a patent related to dynamic intramedullary hardware for stabilizing bone.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on mechanical devices used in orthopedic surgery to fixate implants to bone, a critical function for repairing both fractures and soft tissue injuries.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was examined by USPTO Examiner Pedro Philogene and that numerous prior art references were considered during prosecution, which Plaintiff contends supports the patent's validity. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-03-09 | '160 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2013-12-31 | '160 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2024-05-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,617,160, “Dynamic Intramedullary Hardware,” issued December 31, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty, time, and labor involved in securing conventional intramedullary nails within a fractured bone. Specifically, it notes that aligning and drilling holes for screws to fix the distal end of the nail is challenging, often requiring repeated X-rays and risking misalignment ('160 Patent, col. 1:49-57, col. 2:21-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an intramedullary nail with a built-in anchoring mechanism. This system comprises an internal "flexible rod" with a "driver" element. When the rod is pulled or rotated by a surgeon from outside the body, the driver moves within the nail and pushes one or more "engaging elements" outward from the nail's wall to grip the surrounding cortical bone, thus securing the nail without external drilling at the engagement site ('160 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:10-17). Figure 3 of the patent illustrates the internal components, including the driver (112) and anchors (108), prior to activation ('160 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to simplify and improve the accuracy of distal fixation for intramedullary nails, potentially reducing surgery time, patient and staff radiation exposure, and scarring ('160 Patent, col. 2:28-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 17 ('160 Patent, Compl. ¶28).
- The essential elements of independent claim 17 are:
- An elongated tubular body containing:
- a) a mobile elongated rod;
- b) an anchoring element attached to the elongated tubular body; and
- c) a driver attached to the mobile elongated rod wherein:
- i) the driver moves within the tubular body and engages the anchoring element, causing it to extend out and engage surrounding material; and
- ii) the driver remains engaged with the anchoring element, holding it in position until the driver is moved a second time.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but it alleges infringement of "one or more claims, including at least Claim 17" (Compl. ¶28).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the "REELX STT Knotless Anchor System" as the Accused Instrumentality (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused product as a "medical device used for specific tissue tensioning during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair" (Compl. ¶23). It further alleges that this system is a "device for the implantation into compromised osseous material," directly tracking language from the patent's claims and title (Compl. ¶23). The complaint supports its venue allegations by referencing Defendant's physical presence in the district with a photograph of an office building sign in Tyler, Texas that lists "STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS" (Compl. Fig. 2). Beyond these general statements, the complaint does not provide specific details on the structure or operation of the accused anchor system.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least claim 17 of the '160 Patent and references a claim chart in an unattached Exhibit C (Compl. ¶33). The complaint's narrative asserts that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '160 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the exemplary claim 17" (Compl. ¶33). However, the complaint itself provides no specific facts explaining how the accused knotless anchor system meets each limitation of the claim.
The following table summarizes the allegations for claim 17, noting the lack of specific factual support in the provided document.
'160 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an elongated tubular body wherein the elongated tubular body contains: | The complaint conclusorily alleges the Accused Instrumentalities practice the claimed technology, but provides no specific details on the structure or contents of the product's body. | ¶¶23, 28, 33 | col. 8:10-12 |
| a) a mobile elongated rod; | The complaint does not describe any component within the accused anchor system that corresponds to a mobile elongated rod. | ¶¶28, 33 | col. 8:13 |
| b) an anchoring element attached to the elongated tubular body; and | The complaint does not describe the specific structure of the anchor or its method of attachment to the body of the accused device. | ¶¶28, 33 | col. 8:14-15 |
| c) a driver attached to the mobile elongated rod wherein i) the driver moves within the elongated tubular body and engages the anchoring element causing the anchoring element to extend out...to engage the surrounding material; and | The complaint does not explain the mechanism by which the accused anchor system is deployed or whether it contains a distinct "driver" component that moves to engage and extend an anchor. | ¶¶28, 33 | col. 8:16-22 |
| ii) the driver remains engaged with the anchoring element holding the anchoring element in position until the driver is moved a second time. | The complaint does not provide facts regarding how the accused anchor is held in position or whether a second, distinct motion of a "driver" is used for disengagement. | ¶¶28, 33 | col. 8:23-26 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether the claim term "elongated tubular body", described throughout the patent specification as an "intramedullary nail" for long bone fractures ('160 Patent, col. 2:16-19), can be construed to read on a knotless suture anchor used for rotator cuff repair in the shoulder.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the accused "REELX STT Knotless Anchor System" contains the specific mechanical components required by the claim: a "mobile elongated rod" with an attached "driver" that moves longitudinally to deploy an "anchoring element". The complaint provides no evidence on this point, raising the question of whether there is a fundamental mismatch in the accused product's mechanism of action compared to what is claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"elongated tubular body"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is fundamental to the scope of the patent. The infringement case depends on whether this term, used in the patent to describe an intramedullary nail, can encompass a much smaller suture anchor for arthroscopic surgery. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s context appears significantly different from the accused product’s application.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic and is not explicitly defined in a way that would limit it to a specific size or application.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently and repeatedly frames the invention in the context of an "intramedullary nail" for placement in the "intramedullary cavity" of a long bone to treat fractures ('160 Patent, col. 2:16-25, 4:12-19). The detailed description of the invention exclusively discusses this embodiment.
"driver"
- Context and Importance: The claim requires a specific relationship where a "driver" is attached to a "mobile elongated rod" and moves to engage an anchor. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the accused product, which is part of a "knotless anchor system," contains a structure that can be defined as a "driver" performing this specific mechanical function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of "driver", potentially leaving it open to cover any component that causes actuation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification and figures consistently depict the "driver" (112) as a distinct component with a "body 114 and a conical top 116" that is affixed to or threaded on a rod (110) and moves longitudinally within the nail's hollow body to mechanically push the anchors outward ('160 Patent, col. 4:64-67; Fig. 1F, Fig. 3).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users...to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (Compl. ¶31).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of infringement continuing after the filing and service of the complaint and its attached claim chart (Compl. ¶¶26, 31-32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's determination of two central issues:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "elongated tubular body", which is described in the patent exclusively in the context of a large intramedullary nail for long bone fractures, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused knotless suture anchor, a device designed for an entirely different surgical application (arthroscopic rotator cuff repair)?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical and functional comparison: does the accused REELX anchor system actually operate using the specific mechanism required by Claim 17—namely, a "mobile elongated rod" with an attached "driver" that moves to deploy an anchor—or is there a fundamental mismatch in its mechanical design and function? The complaint’s lack of factual detail on this point makes it a critical area for discovery.