NEWS RELEASE
MARCH 29, 2007
(Westfield, NJ)
Contact:
Ray Janeczek
Direct Dial: 908.518.6369
rjaneczek@ldlkm.com
In a move that could mark the resolution of a patent infringement suit over hip implant technology that has lasted almost five years, a court has granted summary judgment to a subsidiary of orthopedics company Stryker Corp.
U.S. District Judge Allen Sharp on Wednesday signed off on an order granting summary judgment of noninfringement to plaintiff Howmedica Osteonics Corp., rejecting a summary judgment motion by Tranquil Prospects Ltd.
Judge Sharp’s ruling could be appealed, but at the district court level, the case is essentially over, said William L. Mentlik, managing partner of the firm Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP and lead counsel for Howmedica.
“We feel pretty good about it,” Mentlik said of the decision, adding that he was confident that the ruling would hold up if appealed.
Judge Sharp held that Tranquil’s assertions of infringement, which were backed by an unsworn expert declaration and “virtual surgery” geared toward demonstrating that implanting Howmedica’s stem implants would infringe on Tranquil’s patented methods, weren’t up to snuff.
“This curt declines the apparent invitation to engage in a fishing expedition and issue a catchall opinion,” Judge Sharp wrote, after noting that Tranquil’s expert failed to identify specifically which Howmedica prostheses infringed the patents-in-suit.
Judge Sharp goes on to quote from a Seventh Circuit decision from 1991, in a case captioned United States v. Dunkel: “A skeletal ‘argument,’ really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim…Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”
Howmedica asked the court for summary judgment of noninfringement of four claims of the ‘985 patent and one claim of the ‘214 patent, while Tranquil sought summary judgment of direct literal infringement of four claims of the‘985 patent. Tranquil also argued that it was entitled to summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ‘985 patent were not anticipated by putative prior art.
In May 2002, Howmedica filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity with respect to two patents owned by British Virgin Island-based Tranquil Prospects. Tranquil prospects countersued for infringement.
At issue in the suit are U.S. Patent No .,636,214 and 5,222,985—both of which are entitled “Implantation of Articulating Joint Prosthesis.”
Tranquil contended that a variety of Howmedica’s “hip stems,” which connect the femur to the hip socket, encroached on its intellectual property. More than 20 Howmedica’s hip stems, including the “Omnifit” and “Strata, infringed, Tranquil alleged.
The case stretched on as long as it did in part because of an appeal by Tranquil, which followed the district court’s January 2004 finding that the asserted claims of the ‘985 and ‘214 patents were invalid. The U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit breathed new life into the case in 2005, reversing the lower court’s ruling that the Tranquil’s patent claims were indefinite and invalid, vacating the lower court’s ruling that the ‘985 patent was not infringed because that ruling was based on an “erroneous claim construction,” and remanding the case back to the northern Indiana district court.
Attorneys for Tranquil Prospects Ltd. could not be immediately reached for comment.
Tranquil is represented in this matter by Stadheim & Grear Ltd. and Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP.
Howmedica is represented by Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP.
The case is Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Tranquil Prospects Ltd., case number 02-321,in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
By Ben James, ben.james@portfoliomedia.com
