DCT
4:21-cv-00614
Intelligent Automation Design LLC v. OsteoMed LP
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intelligent Automation Design, LLC (Pennsylvania)
- Defendant: OsteoMed, L.P. and OsteoMed, LLC (Delaware / Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: MATTHEWS, LAWSON, MCCUTCHEON, & JOSEPH, PLLC
- Case Identification: 4:21-cv-00614, E.D. Tex., 11/16/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants make, use, sell, or offer to sell the accused products within the Eastern District of Texas and have committed other acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s surgical power driver infringes a patent related to a method for automatically stopping a motorized screwdriver at the optimal torque to prevent stripping screws.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic control systems for powered screwdrivers, particularly in the medical device field, where precise screw seating without damaging bone or hardware is critical.
- Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-10-24 | ’683 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/513,544) |
| 2006-08-15 | U.S. Patent No. 7,091,683 Issues |
| 2021-11-16 | Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,091,683 - "Method of Monitoring and Controlling the Seating of Screws to the Optimum Point of Grip Independent of Screw Size and Material Density"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,091,683, issued August 15, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the shortcomings of traditional power screwdrivers that use mechanical clutches with preset torque limits. Such devices are prone to wear, can be inaccurate, and fail to account for variations in screw size or the density of the material being fastened, which can lead to premature stopping or stripping the threads ('683 Patent, col. 1:33-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an electronic control method that monitors motor torque by measuring its electrical current. The controller identifies the "optimum point of grip" by detecting when the torque reaches a maximum value and then begins to decrease, which signals that the material is about to strip. To avoid false stops from momentary torque fluctuations, the system uses an "averaging formula" to smooth the torque readings. Upon detecting the characteristic peak-and-drop profile, the controller stops the motor ('683 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-17).
- Technical Importance: This approach is designed to make the tool's operation independent of the specific screw size, shape, or material density, thereby eliminating the need for manual tool configuration for each task ('683 Patent, col. 2:17-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-8 of the ’683 Patent (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A method of controlling a motor to drive a screwdriver bit to seat screws to the optimum point of grip, comprising:
- (a) detecting a torque of the motor;
- (b) determining a time when the torque reaches a maximum by an average means for determining an average value as a function of a current value and a new value, thereby determining the optimum point of grip; and
- (c) stopping the motor at the optimum point of grip.
- The complaint alleges infringement of dependent claims 2-8 as well (Compl. ¶10).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- OsteoMed's Pinnacle Battery Powered Driver (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Pinnacle Driver as a surgical instrument featuring "torque-limiting software" that "senses torque to prevent over-torquing & stripping of screws" (Compl. ¶11, p. 4). This software allegedly "senses when any OsteoMed screw is fully seated and stops to prevent stripping of the bone" (Compl. ¶11, p. 4). The complaint also notes that this software is "Programmed based on an exhaustive screw characterization" (Compl. ¶11, p. 4). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’683 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of controlling a motor (106) used to drive a screwdriver bit (105) such that screws (107) are seated to the optimum point of grip... the method comprising: | "OsteoMed’s torque-limiting software...senses when any OsteoMed screw is fully seated and stops to prevent stripping of the bone." | ¶11 (p. 4) | col. 3:6-10 |
| (a) detecting a torque of the motor; | "[The device] Senses torque to prevent over-torquing & stripping of screws." | ¶11 (p. 4) | col. 3:15-18 |
| (b) determining a time when the torque reaches a maximum by an average means for determining an average value as a function of a current value and a new value... | "Upon information and belief, Defendant's Pinnacle Battery Powered Driver determines a time when the torque reaches a maximum by an average means..." | ¶11 (p. 4) | col. 3:19-29 |
| (c) stopping the motor at the optimum point of grip. | "The Pinnacle Driver...the torque limiting software will halt motor operation when the screw is fully seated." | ¶11 (p. 4) | col. 3:27-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary technical question is how the accused device's "torque-limiting software" actually functions. The complaint's allegation for element 1(b) is made "Upon information and belief" and lacks specific factual support. It is unclear if the accused software dynamically calculates an average torque value to find a maximum peak, as claimed, or if it operates differently.
- Scope Questions: The complaint's description of the accused software being "Programmed based on an exhaustive screw characterization" (Compl. ¶11, p. 4) raises a potential scope dispute. The court may need to determine if a system that relies on pre-characterized data (e.g., a lookup table of torque limits for specific screws) meets the claim limitation of "determining a time when the torque reaches a maximum by an average means," which the patent describes as a dynamic, real-time process independent of screw type ('683 Patent, col. 2:17-20).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "average means for determining an average value"
Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central inventive concept for distinguishing over prior art. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused product's software, which is based on "exhaustive screw characterization," constitutes an "average means." Practitioners may focus on this term because it directly implicates the potential mismatch between the patent's dynamic, real-time detection method and the accused product's potentially pre-programmed, data-driven approach.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, noting that "Variations to the averaging formula can be used to adjust the weighting" ('683 Patent, col. 3:44-46). This could support an argument that the term is not limited to the single exemplary formula provided.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explains that the purpose of averaging is to prevent "random peaks/spikes and valleys/drops from creating false triggers" ('683 Patent, col. 3:43-44). The specification also discloses both an analog method (capacitor with a resistor) and a digital microprocessor method for averaging ('683 Patent, col. 3:20-26). A party could argue the term requires a real-time signal-smoothing function, not a system that relies on pre-loaded data.
The Term: "optimum point of grip"
Context and Importance: The patent defines this term with specificity as the point where torque peaks just before it "decreases rapidly" as the material begins to strip ('683 Patent, col. 1:29-32; Fig. 5). The accused product is alleged to stop when a screw is "fully seated" (Compl. ¶11, p. 4). Whether "fully seated" is synonymous with the patent's more technical definition of "optimum point of grip" will be a key question.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that in the context of the invention, any point that achieves a tight fastening without stripping functionally represents the "optimum point of grip."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a torque-profile graph (Fig. 5) that explicitly identifies the "optimum point of grip" as the transition from Zone 3 to Zone 4, precisely at the torque maximum before the subsequent drop ('683 Patent, col. 2:51-64). This could support a narrow definition tied to this specific event in the torque curve.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant's customers directly infringe and that the Pinnacle Driver has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶15-16). The factual basis for inducement appears to rest on Defendant's promotion and sale of the product through advertisements and instructions for use (Compl. ¶¶10, 14).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of willful infringement "Upon information and belief" but provides no specific factual predicate, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶17).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical operation: Does the accused "torque-limiting software," which is described as being based on "exhaustive screw characterization," actually perform the patented method of dynamically identifying a torque maximum using an "average means," or does it operate on an alternative principle, such as stopping the motor upon reaching a pre-determined torque limit stored in a database?
- The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the claim term "average means for determining an average value," which the patent describes as a method for real-time signal smoothing, be construed to cover a system that determines when to stop based on pre-programmed characterization data for specific screws?