Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8506531B2/en
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:37:06+00:00

Document:
2007-01-29 First worldwide family litigation filed litigation Critical https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=25345006&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=US8506531(B2) "Global patent litigation dataset” by Darts-ip is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/687,580, filed 16 Mar. 2007, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/204,586, filed 16 Aug. 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,247,150, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/209,209, filed 30 Jul. 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,929,625, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/797,341, filed 1 Mar. 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,447,485, which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/865,231, filed 29 May 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,213,979, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Together, the box clamp 12 and the soft wing clamp 13 form the fitting 11 for mounting in the retainer 10. In the illustrated embodiment, the retainer 10 has been sized for retention of the conventional box clamp 12 and soft wing clamp 13. Accordingly, the holes 67, 77 of the fitting 11 are spaced by approximately the same distance as the posts 20 on the retainer base 14. The box-like upper surface 64 of the box clamp 12 is sized and shaped to fit between the posts 20. Accordingly, a lateral dimension of the elongate body 60 is smaller than the spacing between the posts 20 (i.e., the elongate body 60 is located between and spaced from holes 67 on the box clamp wings 66), while the height of the fitting 11 (formed by the height of the box clamp 12 plus the thickness of the soft wing clamp wings 76) is smaller than the height of the posts. Desirably, the height of the fining is smaller than the height of the shaft 25 up to the underside 30 of the post head.
Where the slots are arranged at a slight angle to one another, the friction fit of the posts within the slots will improve, relative to an exactly parallel arrangement. It will be understood that, in other arrangements, a similar slot can extend perpendicularly from the longitudinal edge. Alternatively, slots of each opening can extend from opposite longitudinal edges of the cover. In the latter arrangement, the cover would be aligned longitudinally between the posts and the cover twisted to a lateral alignment, such that the posts each engage the slots on each side. As will be understood by one of skill in this art, such slots would desirably extend along the circumference of a circle centered between the termnini.
The flexible hinge 24 b of this embodiment comprises a relatively rigid support arm 92 that is integrally joined to the platform 21 b at a base end 94. As shown in FIG. 6, the support arm 92 extends upwardly from the base end 94 to join with the cover 22 b at a thin bridge 96 of cover material. The bridge 96 is formed along a common exterior surface 98 (see FIG. 7) of the cover 22 b and the support arm 92. The bridge 96 is defined along the apex of a notch 100 in the material that forms the cover 22 b and support arm 92. The notch 100 can be thought of as the structure formed by a beveled edge sloping away from an interior surface 102 of the cover 22 b, conjoined at the bridge 96 with a beveled edge sloping away from an inside surface 104 of the support arm 92. The hinge 24 b flexibly connecting the base 14 b to the cover 22 b thus comprises the support arm 92, the bridge 96, and the surfaces forming the notch 100. In other arrangements, however, the hinge of an embodiment resembling that of FIGS. 6-9 can comprise a structure similar to a conventional hinge pin-bracket arrangement.
The flexibility of the hinge 24 b also depends in part upon the angle formed by surfaces of the notch 100 when the retainer 10 b is in the open position shown in FIG. 6. Desirably, the notch 100 defines an angle of at least about 90 E, and particularly about 115 E. Such an arrangement allows the cover 22 b to lie parallel to the platform 21 b when the retainer 10 b is in the closed position shown in FIG. 7. It will be understood, however, that in other arrangements the closed cover need not lie parallel to the platform 14 b (and may take a curvilinear path as described below).
The fastening pin 112 can be inserted into the receptacle 114 by positioning the pin 112 into the aperture 128 and pressing on the cover 22 b. The sloped surfaces 121 of the fastening pin 112 slide over the beveled inner surfaces 127 of the tangs 122. The interaction of these sloped and beveled surfaces tends to distend the tangs 122 slightly, thereby allowing the barb 118 to enter the slot 130. The tangs 122 then snap back into their original position and engage with the barb 118 of the pin 112 with the corresponding shoulders abutting, thereby releasably securing the cover 22 b to the base 14 b. FIG. 8 illustrates the closed latch 110 b.
a cover being movable relative to the base from a closed position in which at least a portion of the cover is disposed beneath at least one of the enlarged heads and an open position, the cover including at least four apertures, each aperture receiving a corresponding one of the enlarged heads.
2. A retainer according to claim 1, wherein the posts extend generally perpendicularly from the base.
3. A retainer according to claim 1, wherein the walls have convex inner surfaces.
4. A retainer according to claim 1, wherein the cover is coupled to the base by a flexible coupling.
5. A retainer according to claim 1, wherein the cover is smaller than the base.
6. A retainer according to claim 1, wherein the cover has a width sufficient to stabilize at least a section of the medical article located within the retainer.
7. A retainer according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the four posts comprises a shaft and a radial extension, the shaft being configured to engage with the medical article and the radial extension engaging with a cover surface when the cover is in the closed position.
8. A retainer according to claim 1, wherein the cover has length in a lateral direction sufficient to extend at least between two of the four posts.
9. A retainer according to claim 1 further comprising an adhesive layer coupled to the retainer and adapted to adhesively secure the retainer to the body of a patient.
10. A retainer according to claim 9 further comprising a flexible anchor interposed between the retainer and the adhesive layer.
Appeal Brief filed by Venetec in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '150 Patent, Reexamination Control No. 90/010,211, mailed Nov. 30, 2009, 40 pages.
Appeal Brief filed in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '979 Patent, Reexamination Control No. 90/010,167, mailed Nov. 30, 2009, 38 pages.
Brief in Support of Nexus Medical, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of the Venetec Patents (Public Redacted Version); Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Public version filed Oct. 24, 2008, 158 pgs.
Brief in Support of Nexus Medical, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment That the Venetec Patents are Invalid; Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Oct. 10, 2008, 43 pgs.
Civil Case Docket Sheet; Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Jan. 12, 2009, 23 pgs.
Decision on Appeal in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '150 Patent, Appeal No. 2010-007390, Reexamination Control No. 90/010,211, mailing date Sep. 7, 2010, 27 pages.
Decision on Appeal in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '979 Patent, Appeal 2010-007376, Reexamination Control No. 90/010,167, mailing date Aug. 24, 2010, 26 pages.
Declaration of Jennifer C. Bailey in Support of Nexus' Opposition to Venetec's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 31 pg.
Defendant Nexus Medical, LLC's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff Venetec International, Inc's Modified and Supplemental Definitions Set Forth in Its First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Nexus Medical, LLC, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 68 pgs.
Defendant Nexus Medical, LLC's Reply to Plaintiff's Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity; Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Nov. 10, 2008, 24 pgs.
Defendant Nexus Medical, LLC's Reply to Plaintiff's Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of the Venetec Patents (Public Version); Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Public version filed Nov. 18, 2008, 27 pgs.
Examiner's Answer issued to James F. Herkenhoff for Appellant Venetec in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '150 Patent, Reexamination Control No. 90/010,211, mailing date Feb. 22, 2010, 17 pages.
Examiner's Answer issued to James F. Herkenhoff for Appellant Venetec in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '979 Patent, Reexamination Control No. 90/010,167, mailing date Feb. 22, 2010, 17 pages.
Expert Report of Julie E. Shomo Regarding Invalidity of the Venetec Patents Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Jul. 18, 2008, 31 pgs.
Expert Report of Marvin Gordon Regarding Invalidity of the Venetec Patents Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B),Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Jul. 18, 2008, 23 pgs.
Expert Report of William H. Hirsch Regarding Invalidity of the Venetec Patents Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Jul. 18, 2008, 39 pgs.
Final Office Action issued to Venetec in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '150 patent, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,211, mailed May 11, 2009, 23 pgs.
Final Office Action issued to Venetec in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '979 patent, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,167, mailed May 8, 2009, 24 pgs.
Interview Summary in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '150 patent, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,211, mailed Dec. 19, 2008, 3 pgs.
Interview Summary in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '979 patent, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,167, mailed Dec. 19, 2008, 4 pgs.
Joint Claim Construction Chart; Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Oct. 10, 2008, 91 pgs.
Judge Thynge's Order Denying Nexus Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexamination, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 1 pg.
Memorandum Order; Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Mar. 28, 2008, 16 pgs.
Nexus' letter to Judge Thynge dated Sep. 27, 2007, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 2 pgs.
Nexus Medical, LLC's Answer to Complaint and Counterclaim, Venetec International, Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 6 pgs.
Nexus Medical, LLC's Answer to Venetec International, Inc.'s First Supplemental Complaint and Counterclaim, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 16 pgs.
Nexus Medical, LLC's Answer to Venetec International, Inc's Second Supplemental Complaint and Counterclaim, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 22 pgs.
Nexus Medical, LLC's First Amended Answer and Counterclaim to Venetec International, Inc.'s Second Supplemental Complaint and Counterclaim; Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 50 pgs.
Nexus Medical, LLC's Objections and Responses to Venetec International, Inc's First Set of Interrogatories, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 47 pgs.
Nexus Medical, LLC's Opening Claim Construction Brief; Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Oct. 10, 2008, 142 pgs.
Nexus Medical, LLC's Request for Inter Partes Reexamination Under 37 C.F.R. §1.913, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 88 pgs.
Nexus' Opposition to Venetec's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 28 pg.
Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request for the '485 patent, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 1 pg.
Notice of Assignment of Reexamination, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,211, mailed Jul. 7, 2008, 1 pg.
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,211, mailed Jul. 7, 2008, 1 pg.
Office Action issued to Venetec in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '150 patent, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,211, mailed Nov. 7, 2008, 20 pgs.
Office Action issued to Venetec in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '979 patent, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,167, mailed Nov. 7, 2008, 21 pgs.
Office Action Issued to Venetec in the Inter Partes Reexamination, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 23 pgs.
Order Granting Inter Partes Reexamination, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 29 pgs.
Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the '150 patent, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,211, mailed Jul. 29, 2008, 16 pgs.
Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the '979 patent, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,167, mailed Jul. 29, 2008, 13 pgs.
Partial European Search Report, European Application No. EP05075542, mailed Mar. 9, 2009, 5 pgs.
Patent Owner's Response to Office Action issued to Venetec in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '150 patent, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,211, Jan. 7, 2009, 36 pgs.
Patent Owner's Response to Office Action issued to Venetec in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '979 patent, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,167, Jan. 7, 2009, 42 pgs.
Patent Owner's Response to Office Action, Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000271, filed on Nov. 21, 2007, 90 pages.
Patent Owner's Supplemental Response to Office Action, Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000271, filed on Dec. 21, 2007, 46 pages.
Plaintiff's Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity; Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Oct. 30, 2008, 49 pgs.
Plaintiff's Opening Claim Construction Brief; Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Oct. 10, 2008, 45 pgs.
Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Terry N. Layton, Ph.D., Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Aug. 29, 2008, 33 pgs.
Reply Brief by Venetec in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '150 Patent, Reexamination Control No. 90/010,211, mailed Apr. 22, 2010, 8 pages.
Reply Brief filed in the Ex Parte Reexamination of the '979 Patent, Reexamination Control No. 90/010,167, mailed Apr. 22, 2010, 9 pages.
Request for Ex Parte Reexamination for the '979 patent, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, mailed May 15, 2008, 104 pgs.
Request for Ex Parte Reexamination Request for the '150 patent, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,211, mailed Jun. 27, 2008, 160 pgs.
Stipulation and Order amending Nexus Medical, LLC's Answer to Complaint and Counterclaim, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 15 pgs.
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal; Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057-MPT, May 29, 2009, 2 pgs.
Third-Party Requester's Response to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action Dated Sep. 21, 2007, Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000271, filed on Dec. 21, 2007, 85 pages.
Third-Party Requester's Supplemental Response to Patent Owner's Supplemental Response to Office Action Dated Sep. 21, 2007, Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000271, filed on Jan. 22, 2008, 48 pages.
Transcript of Claim Construction Hearing; Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, Nov. 21, 2008, 2008, 70 pgs.
Venetec International, Inc.'s Reply to Nexus Medical, LLC's Counterclaim, Venetec International, Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 4 pgs.
Venetec's letter to Judge Thynge dated Sep. 28, 2007, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 6 pgs.
Venetec's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 3 pgs.
Venetec's Opening Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical, LLC, U.S. District Court for Delaware, Case No. 07-CV-0057, 34 pg.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.