Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., No. CV 90-3006 (ADS).

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
Writing for the CourtSPATT
Citation891 F. Supp. 751
PartiesSTRYKER CORPORATION and Osteonics Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. INTERMEDICS ORTHOPEDICS, INC. and Marli Medical Supplies, Inc., Defendants.
Docket NumberNo. CV 90-3006 (ADS).
Decision Date11 July 1995

891 F. Supp. 751

STRYKER CORPORATION and Osteonics Corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERMEDICS ORTHOPEDICS, INC. and Marli Medical Supplies, Inc., Defendants.

No. CV 90-3006 (ADS).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

July 11, 1995.


891 F. Supp. 752
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
891 F. Supp. 753
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
891 F. Supp. 754
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
891 F. Supp. 755
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
891 F. Supp. 756
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
891 F. Supp. 757
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
891 F. Supp. 758
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
891 F. Supp. 759
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
891 F. Supp. 760
Morgan & Finnegan, New York City, for plaintiffs; John A. Diaz, Robert E. Paulson, Christopher A. Hughes, James W. Gould, Michael A. Nicodema, Andrea L. Wayda, of counsel

Bell, Seltzer, Park & Gibson, Charlotte, NC (Larry C. Jones, Frank B. Wyatt, II, Guy R. Gosnell, of counsel), Fulbright & Jaworski, Houston, TX (James W. Repass, Patricia J. Kerrigan, of counsel), Fulbright & Jaworski, New York City (Ralph Dawson, of counsel), for defendants.

OPINION

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 Table of Contents
                INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 761
                 I. BACKGROUND ................................................................ 762
                 1. The 023 Patent and Claims .............................................. 762
                 2. The APR II and the Parties' Contentions ................................ 764
                 II. AS TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT ................................................. 766
                 1. Literal Infringement ................................................... 766
                 A. The Legal Standard .................................................. 766
                 B. The Infringed Claims ................................................ 767
                 (1) Limitation (iii)
                 "Enabling Flexing" of the Shaft ................................. 769
                 (a) Claims Construction ........................................ 769
                 (b) Infringement Determination ................................. 772
                 (2) Limitation (ii): "Distal Tip Integral With The Distal End of the
                 Stem" ........................................................... 776
                 (a) Claims Construction ........................................ 776
                 (b) Infringement Determination ................................. 779
                 (3) Limitation (v): A Fixation Resistant Surface-Finish ............. 783
                 (a) Claims Construction ........................................ 783
                 (b) Infringement Determination ................................. 785
                 C. Other Evidence of Infringement: Development of the APR II Distal
                 Sleeve After the February 1988 AAOS Meeting ......................... 786
                

891 F. Supp. 761
D. Conclusions and Findings as to Literal Infringement ................. 791 2. Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents ......................... 792 A. The Legal Standard .................................................. 792 B. The Defendant's Equivalency Contentions ............................. 793 C. Equivalence of the APR II and the 023 Patent ........................ 794 D. Prosecution History Estoppel ........................................ 795 E. Conclusion and Findings as to Equivalents ........................... 796 III. AS TO UNENFORCEABILITY: II. EQUITABLE CONDUCT AND INVALIDITY .............. 797 1. Inequitable Conduct .................................................... 797 A. Applicable Legal Standard .......................................... 798 B. Determination of Inequitable Conduct ............................... 800 (1) Materiality of the Whiteside Device ............................. 800 (2) Intent to Deceive ............................................... 804 2. Invalidity ............................................................. 806 A. Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 ................. 806 (1) Legal Standard .................................................. 806 (a) The Hoffman-Daimler Patent ................................. 807 (b) The Lee and Ling Patents ................................... 808 B. Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................... 810 (1) The Legal Standard .............................................. 810 (2) Definiteness Analysis ........................................... 810 3. Conclusion and Findings as to Unenforceability ......................... 812 IV. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT ...................................................... 813 V. DAMAGES ................................................................... 817 1. Lost Profits ........................................................... 818 A. The Legal Standard .................................................. 818 B. Evidence Regarding Osteonics's Lost Profits ......................... 819 (1) Panduit Factor One: Demand for the Patented Product ............. 819 (2) Panduit Factor Two: The Absence of Acceptable Non-Infringing Substitutes ..................................................... 823 (3) Panduit Factor Three: Osteonics's Manufacturing and Marketing Capacity ........................................................ 825 (4) Panduit Factor Four: The Amount of Profit Osteonics Would Have Made ....................................................... 825 C. Conclusions and Findings on Lost Profits ............................ 830 2. Reasonable Royalty ..................................................... 832 3. Prejudgment Interest ................................................... 832 4. Enhancement of Damages and Attorneys' Fees ............................. 833 A. Enhancement of Damage Award ......................................... 833 B. Attorneys' Fees ..................................................... 834 5. Injunctive Relief ...................................................... 835 VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................ 835

SPATT, District Judge:

INTRODUCTION

In years past, a person with an arthritic hip was generally relegated to a wheelchair. The advent of modern medical prosthesis technology now permits such a person to walk and resume a normal life through the use of an artificial socket, ball and neck of the hip joint, known as a hip implant prosthesis or femoral prosthesis. Today, the manufacture and supply of prosthetic devices is a growing and profitable industry. The marketing of such devices is estimated to have generated $2.2 billion dollars in revenue to manufacturers in 1990, and has averaged approximately a 15 percent annual dollar growth since 1988. Approximately one quarter of the orthopedic market involves hip implants.

The present case concerns the alleged infringement of a femoral prosthesis patent. The patent in suit is United States Patent No. 4,888,023 ("the 023 patent"), which is entitled "Femoral Prosthesis with Uncoupled Distal Tip." The 023 patent was filed with the United States Patent Office ("Patent Office") on January 19, 1988 and assigned by its

891 F. Supp. 762
inventor to the plaintiff Osteonics Corporation ("Osteonics" or "plaintiff"). The Patent Office issued the patent on December 19, 1989.

Among the key features of the 023 patent is a metal distal (lower end) tip adapted for engagement with the prosthesis's stem by means of complementary tapers. The term "distal" means furthest away from the point of attachment. The term "proximal" means nearest the point of attachment. As related to a hip implant or femoral prosthesis and as the terms are used in this opinion, distal means at the lower end of the prosthetic device, and proximal means at the upper end of the device. A diagram of the 023 patent is annexed as Appendix A.

Osteonics is a subsidiary of the Stryker Corporation and is in the business of "researching, developing, designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling hip and knee implants." (Tr. at 368).1 Since 1988, Osteonics has manufactured and supplied a femoral prosthesis known as the Omniflex, which is the commercial embodiment of the 023 patent. A diagram of the Omniflex is annexed as Appendix B.

The defendant Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc. (the "defendant" or "Intermedics" or "IOI") has, since January 1990, manufactured and supplied to the medical and orthopedic industry a femoral prosthesis known as the APR II. A diagram of the APR II is annexed as Appendix C. Each APR II has a metal distal sleeve which engages with the distal portion of the stem by means of a complementary taper. The successor to the APR II is the APR II-T, which was designed in 1991 and introduced in 1992. The three changes embodied in the APR II-T are (1) a tapered neck to fit the ceramic ball, (2) wrapped porous coating all around the proximal portion of the device, and (3) a multi-sized hollowed stem. The APR II-T retained the tapered stem and the distal sleeve which "serves the same purpose as the sleeve made available with the APR II." (Tr. at 762).

Both Osteonics and Intermedics supply a full complement of Omniflex and APR II stem sizes and correspondingly sized distal tips or sleeves to the hospital operating room, so that the surgeon is able to assemble and use the stem and the tip or sleeve when medically appropriate. The complete APR II hip system sells for between $3800 and $4000.

This infringement suit was brought by Stryker and Osteonics against Intermedics and Marli Medical Supplies, Inc. ("Marli"), an Intermedics distributor. Osteonics charges Intermedics with literal and willful infringement of claims 8, 10, and 12 of the 023 patent by reason of its manufacture and sale of the APR II and its successor, the APR II-T. (Unless otherwise indicated, references to both the APR II and APR II-T will be to the "APR II"). Osteonics seeks damages, treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285 (1988). The defendants deny the allegations of literal and willful infringement. Intermedics also asserts that the 023 patent is invalid in light of prior art and because its claims are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distribution Ltd., No. 06–cv–1446 (ADS)(ETB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 8, 2011
    ...rate is more reflective of [the patentee's] cost of funds than the ... Treasury Rate.” Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 891 F.Supp. 751, 833 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (Spatt, J.). However, the patentee in Stryker pointed to trial testimony as to why the prime rate was warranted. Id. (“A......
  • Am. Technical Ceramics Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 14-CV-6544 (KAM) (GRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • September 23, 2020
    ...the T-Bill rate would not adequately compensate plaintiff for the infringement); Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc. , 891 F. Supp. 751, 833 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) ("[I]n the Court's view the prime rate is more reflective of [the patentee's] cost of funds than the ... Treasury Rate.").3......
  • Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., No. 94-CV-6534L.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • September 16, 1999
    ...Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1986); Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 891 F.Supp. 751, 810 (E.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, 96 F.3d 1409 (Fed. Cir.1996), it remains the task of this court to decide this issue. In light of the underlying......
  • Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distribution Ltd., 06-cv-1446 (ADS)(ETB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 8, 2011
    ...rate is more reflective of [the patentee's] cost of funds than the . . . Treasury Rate." Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 751, 833 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (Spatt, J.). However, the patentee in Stryker pointed to trial testimony as to why the prime rate was warranted. Id.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distribution Ltd., No. 06–cv–1446 (ADS)(ETB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 8, 2011
    ...rate is more reflective of [the patentee's] cost of funds than the ... Treasury Rate.” Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 891 F.Supp. 751, 833 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (Spatt, J.). However, the patentee in Stryker pointed to trial testimony as to why the prime rate was warranted. Id. (“A......
  • Am. Technical Ceramics Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 14-CV-6544 (KAM) (GRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • September 23, 2020
    ...the T-Bill rate would not adequately compensate plaintiff for the infringement); Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc. , 891 F. Supp. 751, 833 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) ("[I]n the Court's view the prime rate is more reflective of [the patentee's] cost of funds than the ... Treasury Rate.").3......
  • Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., No. 94-CV-6534L.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • September 16, 1999
    ...Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1986); Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 891 F.Supp. 751, 810 (E.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, 96 F.3d 1409 (Fed. Cir.1996), it remains the task of this court to decide this issue. In light of the underlying......
  • Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distribution Ltd., 06-cv-1446 (ADS)(ETB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 8, 2011
    ...rate is more reflective of [the patentee's] cost of funds than the . . . Treasury Rate." Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 751, 833 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (Spatt, J.). However, the patentee in Stryker pointed to trial testimony as to why the prime rate was warranted. Id.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT