Source: https://patents.justia.com/patent/9572963
Timestamp: 2020-02-29 01:57:18
Document Index: 615772704

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 60', 'Application No. 60', 'Application No. 60', 'Application No. 08102896', '§ 256', '§ 1', '§ 256', '§ 1', '§ 256', '§ 1', '§ 1']

US Patent for Ocular disorder treatment methods and systems Patent (Patent # 9,572,963 issued February 21, 2017) - Justia Patents Search
Justia Patents With Flow Control Means (e.g., Check Valves, Hydrocephalus Pumps, Etc.)US Patent for Ocular disorder treatment methods and systems Patent (Patent # 9,572,963)
Mar 5, 2013 - Glaukos Corporation
An embodiment of a system for shunting aqueous humor from an anterior chamber of an eye includes an implant having an elongated body made of biocompatible material and a delivery device. At least a portion of the elongated body is implantable between a sclera and a ciliary body while the elongated body resides entirely within the confines of the sclera and a cornea with the proximal end of the implant being configured to reside within an anterior chamber angle and a lumen extending from at least one inlet port of the implant, through at least a portion of the elongated body, to one or more outlet ports of the implant so as to drain fluid from the anterior chamber toward a choroid of the eye. The delivery device includes an elongated member with a curved distal end portion to deliver the implant using an ab interno procedure.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/301,648, filed Nov. 21, 2011, entitled OCULAR IMPLANT SYSTEMS, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,579,846, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/366,508, filed Feb. 5, 2009, entitled SELF-TREPHINING IMPLANT AND METHODS THEREOF FOR TREATMENT OF OCULAR DISORDERS, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,062,244, which is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/598,542, filed Nov. 13, 2006, entitled IMPLANT AND METHODS THEREOF FOR TREATMENT OF OCULAR DISORDERS, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,563,241, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/118,578, filed Apr. 8, 2002, entitled GLAUCOMA STENT AND METHODS THEREOF FOR GLAUCOMA TREATMENT, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,135,009, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/281,973, filed Apr. 7, 2001, entitled GLAUCOMA SHUNT AND METHODS THEREOF FOR GLAUCOMA TREATMENT, the entire contents of each of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein.
U.S. application Ser. No. 09/549,350, filed Apr. 14, 2000, entitled APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TREATING GLAUCOMA, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,638,239, and U.S. application Ser. No. 09/704,276, filed Nov. 1, 2000, entitled GLAUCOMA TREATMENT DEVICE, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,736,791, disclose devices and methods of placing a trabecular shunt ab interno, i.e., from inside the anterior chamber through the trabecular meshwork, into Schlemm's canal. The entire contents of each of these patent applications are hereby incorporated by reference herein. The invention encompasses both ab interno and ab externo glaucoma shunts or stents and methods thereof.
Generally, trabecular bypass surgery (TBS) creates an opening, a slit, or a hole through trabecular meshwork with minor microsurgery. TBS has the advantage of a much lower risk of choroidal hemorrhage and infection than prior techniques, and it uses existing physiologic outflow mechanisms. In some aspects, this surgery can potentially be performed under topical or local anesthesia on an outpatient basis with rapid visual recovery. To prevent “filling in” of the hole, a biocompatible elongated device is placed within the hole and serves as a stent. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/549,350, filed Apr. 14, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,638,239, the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein, discloses trabecular bypass surgery.
As described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/549,350, filed Apr. 14, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,638,239, and U.S. application Ser. No. 09/704,276, filed Nov. 1, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,736,791, the entire contents each one of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein, a trabecular shunt or stent for transporting aqueous humor is provided. The trabecular stent includes a hollow, elongate tubular element, having an inlet section and an outlet section. The outlet section may optionally include two segments or elements, adapted to be positioned and stabilized inside Schlemm's canal. In one embodiment, the device appears as a “T” shaped device.
In one aspect of the invention, a delivery apparatus (or “applicator”) is used for placing a trabecular stent through a trabecular meshwork of an eye. Certain embodiments of such a delivery apparatus are disclosed in U.S. application Ser. No. 10/101,548, filed Mar. 18, 2002, entitled APPLICATOR AND METHODS FOR PLACING A TRABECULAR SHUNT FOR GLAUCOMA TREATMENT, published as U.S. Publication No. 2002/0133168 and now abandoned, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/276,609, filed Mar. 16, 2001, entitled APPLICATOR AND METHODS FOR PLACING A TRABECULAR SHUNT FOR GLAUCOMA TREATMENT, the entire contents of each one of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein.
FIG. 52 is a perspective view illustrating a seton implant positioned within the tissue of an eye.
FIG. 53 is an alternate exemplary method for placing a seton implant at the implant site.
FIG. 54 illustrates a cut/install tool for forming a trabecular meshwork incision and for installing an intraocular pressure relief device.
The stent 30 of the embodiments disclosed herein can be dimensioned in a wide variety of manners. Referring in particular to FIG. 3, the depth of Schlemm's canal 22 is typically about less than 400 microns (μm). Accordingly, the stent blade 34 is dimensioned so that the height of the blade 34 (referred to as H41 in FIG. 4) is typically less than about 400 μm. The snorkel shank 40 is dimensioned so that it has a length (referred to as L41 in FIG. 4) typically in the range from about 100 μm to about 300 μm which is roughly the typical range of the thickness of the trabecular meshwork 21.
An applicator or delivery apparatus is used to advance the glaucoma stent 30 through the corneal incision and to the trabecular meshwork 21. Some embodiments of such a delivery apparatus are disclosed in U.S. application Ser. No. 10/101,548, filed Mar. 18, 2002, entitled APPLICATOR AND METHODS FOR PLACING A TRABECULAR SHUNT FOR GLAUCOMA TREATMENT, published as U.S. Publication No. 2002/0133168 and now abandoned, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/276,609, filed Mar. 16, 2001, entitled APPLICATOR AND METHODS FOR PLACING A TRABECULAR SHUNT FOR GLAUCOMA TREATMENT, the entire contents of each one of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein. Some embodiments of a delivery apparatus are also discussed in further detail later herein. Gonioscopic, microscopic, or endoscopic guidance may be used during the trabecular meshwork surgery.
FIG. 31 shows another illustrative method for placing any of the various stent embodiments taught or suggested herein at the implant site within the eye 10. A delivery apparatus 100b generally comprises a syringe portion 116 and a cannula portion 118. The distal section of the cannula 118 has at least one irrigating hole 120 and a distal space 122 for holding the stent device 30. The proximal end 124 of the lumen of the distal space 122 is sealed from the remaining lumen of the cannula portion 118. The delivery apparatus of FIG. 31 may be employed with the any of the various stent embodiments taught or suggested herein.
FIG. 48 illustrates one embodiment of the trabecular shunt applicator 502, holding the trabecular shunt 510 in place. Additionally, a trabecular meshwork blade 528 extends from the distal end of the applicator 502. In this embodiment, the blade 528 may be extended by spring action from the distal end of the applicator 502 when the operator pushes a button 530 or similarly actuates extension of the blade 528. The blade 528 can be retracted within the applicator 502 by means of a slide button 538, which the operator can move proximally to retract the blade 528. Alternatively, a plunger 532 may move the blade 528 forward and backward within the applicator 502. Also shown is the outer tube 534 of the applicator 502, as well as holes 536 in the applicator 502. These holes 536 may be used for aspiration or irrigation of the anterior chamber of the eye during the performance of trabecular meshwork surgery.
FIG. 49A shows one embodiment of a trabecular meshwork trephine, or punch 542. An inner tube 506 resides within an outer tube 504. The inner tube 506 is in communication with an inner plunger 546. The proximal end 550 of the inner plunger 546 is acted upon by a hammer 552 that is attached to a spring 548. The spring 548 may be recoiled or loaded, storing potential energy, and the hammer 552 is then held in place by an actuator 554 or other similar member in communication with the actuator 554. When the actuator 554 is acted upon by an operator, the spring 548 releases its potential energy, causing the hammer 552 to move forward, contacting the proximal end 550 of the inner plunger 546. This in turn causes the punch 544 to move forward, contacting the trabecular meshwork.
FIG. 49B view is a close-up, cross-sectional view of the punch 544. Again seen as the outer tube 504, the inner tube 506, and the punch 544 of the device. This trephine or punch may comprise a circular blade 556 or other similar configuration known to those skilled in the art for making a cut or punch hole in the trabecular meshwork of an eye.
FIGS. 50A and 50B illustrate embodiments of a control arm 598 which is attached to a mechanism for performing trabeculotomy. In FIG. 50A, a blade 570 extends from an end of the control arm 598. In some embodiments, the long axis of the control arm 598 runs parallel or semiparallel to the long axis of the applicator 502. The blade 570 may be used to make a trabeculotomy in preparation for placing the trabecular shunt 510 through the trabecular meshwork and into Schlemm's canal.
FIG. 50B shows a “hot tip” 571 at the end of the control arm 598. This hot tip 571 may be a cautery, laser, or other energy transfer device for making a hole in the trabecular meshwork in preparation for placing the shunt 510 through the trabecular meshwork and into Schlemm's canal.
FIGS. 51A through 51C illustrate various embodiments of devices, such as trephines, that can punch holes in the trabecular meshwork. In FIG. 51A, a trabecular meshwork punch 560 is illustrated. This punch 560 can make holes 561 in the trabecular meshwork 595. These holes 561 can be of various configurations, depending on the shape of the distal blade of the trabecular meshwork punch 560.
In FIG. 51B, a blade 566 extends from the end of a trabecular meshwork cutter 565. This blade 566 can make various punch holes 567 in the trabecular meshwork 595, as illustrated.
FIG. 51C illustrates a trabecular meshwork drill 568. The drill 568 has a distal drill bit 569, which can make a drill hole 561 in the trabecular meshwork 595.
Referring to FIG. 32, the aqueous flows from the anterior chamber 20, through the lumen 42f, then out through two side-ports 56f to be directed in both directions along Schlemm's canal 22. Alternatively, flow could be directed in only one direction through a single side-port 56f. In other embodiments, more than two outlet ports 56f, for example, six to eight ports (like a pin wheel configuration), may be efficaciously used, as needed or desired.
Referring to FIG. 34, the aqueous flows from the anterior chamber 20, through the lumen 42g, then out through two side-ports 56g to be directed in both directions along Schlemm's canal 22. Alternatively, flow could be directed in only one direction through a single side-port 56g. In other embodiments, more than two outlet ports 56g may be efficaciously used, as needed or desired.
Referring to FIG. 36, the aqueous flows from the anterior chamber 20, through the lumen 42i, then out through two side-ports 56i to be directed in both directions along Schlemm's canal 22. Alternatively, flow could be directed in only one direction through a single side-port 56i. In other embodiments, more than two outlet ports 56i may be efficaciously used, as needed or desired.
Referring to FIG. 37, the aqueous flows from the anterior chamber 20, through the lumen 42j, then out through two side-ports 56j to be directed in both directions along Schlemm's canal 22. Alternatively, flow could be directed in only one direction through a single side-port 56j. In other embodiments, more than two outlet ports 56j may be efficaciously used, as needed or desired.
Referring to FIG. 38, the aqueous flows from the anterior chamber 20, through the lumen 42k, then out through two side-ports 56k to be directed in both directions along Schlemm's canal 22. Alternatively, flow could be directed in only one direction through a single side-port 56k. In other embodiments, more than two outlet ports 56k may be efficaciously used, as needed or desired.
Referring to FIG. 39, the aqueous flows from the anterior chamber 20, through the lumen 42m, then out through two side-ports 56m to be directed in both directions along Schlemm's canal 22. Alternatively, flow could be directed in only one direction through a single side-port 56m. In other embodiments, more than two outlet ports 56m may be efficaciously used, as needed or desired.
It is commonly known that there is a diurnal variation in the aqueous humor production by the eye—it is higher during the day than it is at night. The lumen 42n of the stent 30n responds to light entering the cornea during the day by expanding and allowing higher flow of aqueous through the lumen 42n and into Schlemm's canal 22. This expansion is generally indicated by the smaller arrows 156 (FIG. 40) which show the lumen 42n (and ports) expanding or opening in response to light stimulus. (The light or radiation energy E is generally given by E=hv, where h is Planck's constant and v is the frequency.) At night, in darkness, the lumen diameter decreases and reduces the flow allowed through the lumen 42n. In one embodiment, an excitation wavelength that is different from that commonly encountered is provided on an as-needed basis to provide higher flow of aqueous to Schlemm's canal 22.
Referring to FIG. 40, the aqueous flows from the anterior chamber 20, through the lumen 42n, then out through two side-ports 56n to be directed in both directions along Schlemm's canal 22. Alternatively, flow could be directed in only one direction through a single side-port 56n. In other embodiments, more than two outlet ports 56n may be efficaciously used, as needed or desired.
FIG. 43 illustrates a valved tube stent device 30r having features and advantages in accordance with one embodiment. This is an embodiment of a stent 30r that provides a channel for flow between the anterior chamber 20 and the highly vascular choroid 17. Clinically, the choroid 17 can be at pressures lower than those desired for the eye 10. Therefore, this stent 30r includes a valve with an opening pressure equal to the desired pressure difference between the choroid 17 and the anterior chamber 20 or a constriction that provide the desired pressure drop.
This ultra-microscopic device 30u (FIG. 46) can be used with (1) a targeting Lasik-type laser, or with (2) contact on eyes or with (3) combined ultrasound microscope or (4) other device insertor handpiece.
Other ways to close a valve other than pressure: concentration, expansion/contraction, pH
Bypass directly to collector channels
hollow dart
pin guided tube welded or glued into place
Stent to conjunctival space using a sterile filter for bacterial backflow/infection prevention
Subchoroidal shunt with valve to prevent hypotony
Use high salt concentrations (osmotic pump) to drive liquid through trabecular meshwork.
+ add drug to liquid going through to coat/repair cells.
Another ab-externo approach wherein a sighting mechanism, such as ultrasonic and/or ultrabiomicroscope is used to locate Schlemm's canal in space, and drive an HTS type device through the external wall of Schlemm's and into the trabecular meshwork. Device could unfold so incision can be smaller in sclera/external Schlemm's than in internal Schlemm's wall. Sleeve/pushrod approach. Could be very short and uninvasive procedure requiring very little skill, provided the sighting technology was well done. Should compensate for eye movement, as is done with Lasik. Seal Schlemm's external wall wound with bioglue or bioadhesive, if necessary.
A device placed into anterior chamber for slow release of drug to treat/cure outflow pathway. Replace or recharge device once or twice per year.
Photodynamic response valve to synchronize outflow rate with natural diurnal variations.
Ab-interno-to-temporal HTS implantation.
A device that expands for improved seating into place. Activated by liquid contact (swells to final shape), or body heat (eg, nitinol).
Develop a permeability test to measure outflow capacity directly, and use to design treatment.
Develop a glaucoma assay that uses near-IR, Raman scattering or visible light methods to sense biochemical signals that could lead to glaucoma: metabolites, cell apoptosis, oxygen levels, pH, degredation products, etc.
FIG. 52 shows a perspective view illustrating the seton implant 1031 of an embodiment of the present disclosure positioned within the tissue of an eye 10. A hole/opening is created through the diseased trabecular meshwork 21. The distal section of the seton implant 1031 is inserted into the hole/opening, wherein the inlet end is exposed to the anterior chamber 20 while the outlet end is positioned at about an exterior surface 1043 of said diseased trabecular meshwork 21. In a further embodiment, the outlet end may further enter into fluid collection channels of the existing outflow pathways.
FIG. 53 shows an illustrative method for placing a seton implant at the implant site. An irrigating knife or applicator 1051 comprises a syringe portion 1054 and a cannula portion 1055. The distal section of the cannula portion 1055 has at least one irrigating hole 1053 and a distal space 1056 for holding a seton implant 1031. The proximal end 1057 of the lumen of the distal space 1056 is sealed from the remaining lumen of the cannula portion 1055.
For positioning the seton 1031 in the hole or opening through the trabecular meshwork, the seton may be advanced over the guidewire or a fiberoptic (retrograde). In another embodiment, the seton is directly placed on the delivery applicator and advanced to the implant site, wherein the delivery applicator holds the seton securely during the delivery stage and releases it during the deployment stage.
In an exemplary embodiment of the trabecular meshwork surgery, the patient is placed in the supine position, prepped, draped and anesthesia obtained. In one embodiment, a small (less than 1 mm) self sealing incision is made. Through the cornea opposite the seton placement site, an incision is made in trabecular meshwork with an irrigating knife. The seton 1031 is then advanced through the cornea incision 1052 across the anterior chamber 20 held in an irrigating applicator 1051 under gonioscopic (lens) or endoscopic guidance. The applicator is withdrawn and the surgery concluded. The irrigating knife may be within a size range of 20 to 40 gauges, preferably about 30 gauge.
FIG. 54 illustrates a cut/install tool 5410 configured to form an opening in eye tissue (e.g., a trabecular meshwork incision) and install an TOP relief device 5405. In the illustrated embodiment the device install tool 5410 is an elongate member having a bent tip. A portion of the device install tool may be configured to fit within a lumen of the TOP relief device 5405 to carry the TOP relief device 5405 as shown. In one embodiment, the device install tool 5410 is a needle (e.g. a 30-gauge needle).
1. A method of treating an ocular disorder comprising:
forming an incision in a cornea or a corneal limbus of an eye to access an anterior chamber of the eye;
introducing a shunt through the incision and into the anterior chamber of the eye using a delivery device;
forming an opening in ocular tissue at an anterior chamber angle; and
advancing the shunt from within the anterior chamber of the eye using a curved distal end portion of the delivery device, with an outlet portion of the shunt leading an inlet portion of the shunt, through the opening to an implantation location wherein at least a portion of the shunt is positioned between a sclera and a ciliary body of the eye while the shunt resides entirely within the confines of the sclera and the cornea of the eye and wherein a proximal end of the shunt is configured to reside in the anterior chamber when in the implantation location,
thereby facilitating draining of fluid from the anterior chamber such that fluid flows into an inlet port of the inlet portion and out through one or more outlet ports of the outlet portion.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein advancing the shunt involves positioning the shunt so that a first portion of the outer circumferential surface of the shunt is in contact with the ciliary body of the eye and so that a second portion of the outer circumferential surface of the shunt opposite the first portion is in contact with the sclera.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein forming the incision involves forming a self-sealing incision.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein forming the opening in ocular tissue is performed using the delivery device.
5. The method of claim 3 additionally comprising removing the shunt from the delivery device by moving an actuator on a handpiece of the delivery device.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein forming the opening in ocular tissue is performed using the delivery device.
7. The method of claim 1, additionally comprising removing the shunt from the delivery device by moving an actuator on a handpiece of the delivery device.
8. The method of claim 1, additionally comprising actuating an actuator on a handpiece of the delivery device to cause a loaded spring within the handpiece to at least partially unload, thereby deploying the shunt from the delivery device.
9. A method of treating an ocular disorder, the method comprising:
inserting an implant into an anterior chamber of an eye, the implant comprising an elongated body made of biocompatible material that extends between a proximal end and a distal end of the implant, the proximal end comprising an inlet port and the distal end comprising an outlet port, and a lumen extending from the inlet port to the outlet port;
advancing the implant from within the anterior chamber of an eye to an anterior chamber angle of the eye using a delivery device having a curved distal end portion; and
positioning the implant such that the proximal end of the implant resides within the anterior chamber and such that at least a portion of the implant, which is between the proximal end and the distal end of the implant, is in contact with a sclera and a ciliary body of the eye while the elongated body resides entirely within the confines of the sclera and a cornea of the eye,
thereby facilitating drainage of aqueous humor out of the anterior chamber through the implant.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein said advancing the implant from within the anterior chamber of the eye to the anterior chamber angle of the eye comprises advancing the implant with the distal end leading the proximal end.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein said inserting the implant into the anterior chamber of the eye comprises inserting the implant through a self-sealing incision in the cornea.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein inserting the implant comprises inserting a tubular implant.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein said positioning the implant comprises positioning the implant so that a first portion of an outer circumferential surface of the implant is in contact with the ciliary body of the eye and so that a second portion of the outer circumferential surface of the implant is in contact with the sclera.
14. The method of claim 10, wherein inserting the implant comprises inserting a tubular implant.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein said positioning the implant comprises positioning the implant so that a first portion of an outer circumferential surface of the implant is in contact with the ciliary body of the eye and so that a second portion of the outer circumferential surface of the implant is in contact with the sclera.
16. The method of claim 10, additionally comprising removing the implant from the delivery device by moving an actuator on a handpiece of the delivery device.
17. The method of claim 9, additionally comprising actuating an actuator on a handpiece of the delivery device to cause a loaded spring within the handpiece to at least partially unload, thereby deploying the implant from the delivery device.
18. A system for shunting aqueous humor from an anterior chamber of a living human eye, the system comprising:
an implant having an elongated body made of biocompatible material that extends between a proximal end and a distal end of the implant, at least a portion of the elongated body being implantable at a site between a sclera and a ciliary body of the eye while the elongated body resides entirely within the confines of the sclera and a cornea of the eye, the proximal end of the implant being configured to reside within an anterior chamber angle of the eye, and a lumen extending from at least one inlet port located at the proximal end of the implant, through at least a portion of the elongated body, and to one or more outlet ports located at or near the distal end of the implant so as to drain fluid from the anterior chamber of the eye; and
a delivery device having an elongated member with a curved distal end portion, the implant being positionable on the elongated member with its one or more outlet ports disposed closer to a distal end of the elongated member than the at least one inlet port of the implant so as to advance the implant from within the anterior chamber to said site between the sclera and the ciliary body using an ab interno procedure.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the delivery device is sized so as to fit through a self-sealing incision into the anterior chamber.
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the implant has a sufficient length such that the distal end of the implant contacts uveal tissue of the eye when implanted in the eye.
21. The system of claim 19, wherein the implant includes at least one anchor to inhibit movement of the implant once implanted with the portion of the elongated body located between the sclera and the ciliary body.
22. The system of claim 19, wherein the elongated member of the delivery device is pointed.
23. The system of claim 19, wherein the implant is configured such that when the proximal end of the implant is disposed within the anterior chamber of the eye, the distal end of the implant is in contact with the ciliary body.
24. The system of claim 19, wherein the one or more outlet ports drain into a uveoscleral outflow path of the eye.
25. The system of claim 19, wherein the delivery device comprises a spring within a handpiece of the delivery device, and wherein the spring is configured to be at least partially unloaded upon actuating an actuator on the handpiece, thereby allowing for release of the implant from the delivery device.
26. The system of claim 19, wherein the proximal end of the implant comprises a seat configured to facilitate stabilization of the implant.
27. The system of claim 26, wherein the seat is circular in shape.
28. The system of claim 19, wherein at least a portion of a length of the elongated body of the implant comprises retention members.
29. The system of claim 18, wherein the delivery device has a diameter sized to fit through an incision of 1 mm or less.
30. The system of claim 18, wherein the implant has a sufficient length such that the distal end of the implant contacts uveal tissue of the eye when implanted in the eye.
31. The system of claim 18, wherein the implant includes at least one anchor to inhibit movement of the implant once implanted with the portion of the elongated body located between the sclera and the ciliary body.
32. The system of claim 18, wherein the elongated member of the delivery device is pointed.
33. The system of claim 18, wherein the implant is configured such that when the proximal end of the implant is disposed within the anterior chamber of the eye, the distal end of the implant is in contact with the ciliary body.
34. The system of claim 18, wherein the one or more outlet ports drain into a uveoscleral outflow path of the eye.
35. The system of claim 18, wherein the proximal end of the implant comprises a seat configured to facilitate stabilization of the implant.
36. The system of claim 35, wherein the seat is circular in shape.
37. The system of claim 18, wherein at least a portion of a length of the elongated body of the implant comprises retention members.
38. The system of claim 18, wherein the delivery device comprises a spring within a handpiece of the delivery device, and wherein the spring is configured to be at least partially unloaded upon actuating an actuator on the handpiece, thereby allowing for release of the implant from the delivery device.
4583224 April 15, 1986 Ishii et al.
4883864 November 28, 1989 Scholz
5284476 February 8, 1994 Kock
5547993 August 20, 1996 Miki
5557453 September 17, 1996 Schalz et al.
5652236 July 29, 1997 Krauss
5663205 September 2, 1997 Ogawa et al.
5767079 June 16, 1998 Glaser et al.
5784147 July 21, 1998 Volk
5814620 September 29, 1998 Robinson et al.
5840041 November 24, 1998 Petter et al.
5879319 March 9, 1999 Pynson et al.
5925342 July 20, 1999 Adorante et al.
5952378 September 14, 1999 Stjerschantz et al.
5981598 November 9, 1999 Tatton
6059812 May 9, 2000 Clerc et al.
6060463 May 9, 2000 Freeman
6110912 August 29, 2000 Kaufman et al.
6168575 January 2, 2001 Soltanpour
6177427 January 23, 2001 Clark et al.
6184250 February 6, 2001 Klimko et al.
6193656 February 27, 2001 Jeffries et al.
6197056 March 6, 2001 Schachar
6201001 March 13, 2001 Wang et al.
6228873 May 8, 2001 Brandt et al.
6231853 May 15, 2001 Hillman et al.
6266182 July 24, 2001 Morita
6274138 August 14, 2001 Bandman et al.
6287256 September 11, 2001 Park et al.
6399734 June 4, 2002 Hodd et al.
6413540 July 2, 2002 Yaacobi
6416777 July 9, 2002 Yaacobi
6622473 September 23, 2003 Lynch et al.
6666213 December 23, 2003 Svadovskiy
7364564 April 29, 2008 Sniegowski et al.
7592016 September 22, 2009 Wong et al.
7662123 February 16, 2010 Shields
7695135 April 13, 2010 Rosenthal
7708711 May 4, 2010 Tu et al.
7811268 October 12, 2010 Maldon Ado Bas
7815592 October 19, 2010 Coroneo
7850638 December 14, 2010 Coroneo
7862531 January 4, 2011 Yaron et al.
7951155 May 31, 2011 Smedley et al.
8034016 October 11, 2011 Yaron et al.
8034105 October 11, 2011 Stegmann et al.
8128588 March 6, 2012 Coroneo
8152752 April 10, 2012 Lynch et al.
8267995 September 18, 2012 Castillejos
8313454 November 20, 2012 Yaron et al.
8337509 December 25, 2012 Schieber et al.
8388568 March 5, 2013 Lynch et al.
8439972 May 14, 2013 Badawi et al.
8444588 May 21, 2013 Yablonski
8444589 May 21, 2013 Silvestrini
8657776 February 25, 2014 Wardle et al.
8771217 July 8, 2014 Lynch et al.
8882781 November 11, 2014 Smedley et al.
9155654 October 13, 2015 Tu et al.
20020026200 February 28, 2002 Savage
20020082591 June 27, 2002 Haefliger
20020188308 December 12, 2002 Tu et al.
20030069637 April 10, 2003 Lynch et al.
20030088260 May 8, 2003 Smedley et al.
20030153863 August 14, 2003 Patel
20030187385 October 2, 2003 Bergheim et al.
20040059248 March 25, 2004 Messner et al.
20040076676 April 22, 2004 Tojo et al.
20040154946 August 12, 2004 Solovay et al.
20040162545 August 19, 2004 Brown et al.
20050038334 February 17, 2005 Lynch et al.
20050184004 August 25, 2005 Rodgers et al.
20050261624 November 24, 2005 Wilcox
20060079828 April 13, 2006 Brown
20060129129 June 15, 2006 Smith
20070078371 April 5, 2007 Brown et al.
20070106200 May 10, 2007 Levy
20070185468 August 9, 2007 Prywes
20070202186 August 30, 2007 Yamamoto et al.
20070219632 September 20, 2007 Castillejos
20070233037 October 4, 2007 Gifford, III et al.
20070276316 November 29, 2007 Haffner
20070292474 December 20, 2007 Hsu et al.
20070298068 December 27, 2007 Badawi et al.
20080027304 January 31, 2008 Pardo et al.
20080108934 May 8, 2008 Berlin
20080243247 October 2, 2008 Poley et al.
20090036818 February 5, 2009 Grahn et al.
20090076436 March 19, 2009 Gharib et al.
20090082860 March 26, 2009 Schieber et al.
20090082862 March 26, 2009 Schieber et al.
20090137992 May 28, 2009 Mallakrishnan
20090177138 July 9, 2009 Brown et al.
20090177245 July 9, 2009 Ameri et al.
20090227934 September 10, 2009 Euteneuer et al.
20090275924 November 5, 2009 Lattanzio et al.
20090287136 November 19, 2009 Castillejos
20100004635 January 7, 2010 Lin et al.
20100010452 January 14, 2010 Paques
20100056977 March 4, 2010 Wandel
20100056979 March 4, 2010 Smedley et al.
20100106073 April 29, 2010 Haffner et al.
20100114006 May 6, 2010 Baerveldt
20100125237 May 20, 2010 Schocket
20100168644 July 1, 2010 Brown
20100191329 July 29, 2010 Badawi et al.
20100222733 September 2, 2010 Schieber et al.
20100249691 September 30, 2010 Van Der Mooren et al.
20110098627 April 28, 2011 Wilcox
20110130831 June 2, 2011 Badawi et al.
20110144559 June 16, 2011 Lafdi et al.
20110196487 August 11, 2011 Badawi et al.
20110319793 December 29, 2011 Hynynen
20120010702 January 12, 2012 Stegmann et al.
20120035525 February 9, 2012 Silvestrini
20120059461 March 8, 2012 Badawi et al.
20120130467 May 24, 2012 Selden et al.
20120165722 June 28, 2012 Horvath et al.
20120179087 July 12, 2012 Schieber et al.
20120184892 July 19, 2012 Bigler et al.
20120197175 August 2, 2012 Horvath et al.
20120203160 August 9, 2012 Kahook et al.
20120310072 December 6, 2012 Grieshaber
20130006165 January 3, 2013 Euteneuer et al.
20130102949 April 25, 2013 Baerveldt
20130150779 June 13, 2013 Field
20130150959 June 13, 2013 Schieber et al.
20130158462 June 20, 2013 Wardle et al.
20130172804 July 4, 2013 Schieber et al.
20130253404 September 26, 2013 Tu et al.
20140046437 February 13, 2014 Renke
20140343475 November 20, 2014 Smedley et al.
20150148730 May 28, 2015 Lynch et al.
20150223981 August 13, 2015 Smedley et al.
2004264913 February 2005 AU
2009251058 December 2013 AU
2273331 June 1998 CA
2311244 June 1999 CA
2683224 December 2014 CA
19840047 March 2000 DE
0550791 July 1993 EP
0858788 August 1998 EP
0881055 December 1998 EP
1114627 July 2001 EP
2088976 August 2009 EP
2260803 December 2010 EP
2351589 August 2011 EP
2710269 March 1995 FR
2721499 December 1995 FR
2296663 July 1996 GB
11-123205 May 1999 JP
3703721 July 2005 JP
4688444 February 2011 JP
5255402 April 2013 JP
5323011 July 2013 JP
WO 91/08784 June 1991 WO
WO 91/18568 December 1991 WO
WO 92/00112 January 1992 WO
WO 92/19294 November 1992 WO
WO/94/13234 June 1994 WO
WO 94/21205 September 1994 WO
WO 95/08310 March 1995 WO
WO 98/30181 July 1998 WO
WO 98/35639 August 1998 WO
WO 99/30644 June 1999 WO
WO 99/38470 August 1999 WO
WO 00/13627 March 2000 WO
WO 00/64391 November 2000 WO
WO 00/64393 November 2000 WO
WO 00/72788 December 2000 WO
WO 01/50943 July 2001 WO
WO 01/78631 October 2001 WO
WO 01/78656 October 2001 WO
WO 01/97727 December 2001 WO
WO 02/36052 May 2002 WO
WO 02/080811 October 2002 WO
WO 03/015659 February 2003 WO
WO 2005/055873 June 2005 WO
WO 2009/012406 January 2009 WO
WO 2010/093945 August 2010 WO
WO 2011/020633 February 2011 WO
WO 2012/071476 May 2012 WO
WO 2013/148275 October 2013 WO
WO 2014/151070 September 2014 WO
Portney, GL. “Silicone Elastomer Implantation Cyclodialysis,” Arch Ophthalmol. 89, 10-12 (1973).
Bietti, G.B., “The Present State of the Use of Plastics in Eye Surgery,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 33, No. 4 (1955).
Coote, M. A., “Glaucoma Hollow Fiber Filters—A New Glaucoma Seton. Preliminary Results,” J. Glaucoma, vol. 8, No. 1, Supplement (1999).
Cullen et al., “Anterior Chamber to Frontal Sinus Shunt for the Diversion of Aqueous Humor: A Pilot Study in Four Normal Dogs,” Veterinary Ophthalmology, vol. 1, No. 1 (1998).
Emi, Kazayuki, et al., Hydrostatic Pressure of the Suprachoroidal Space, Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 30, No. 2, Feb. 1989 (pp. 233-238).
Extended European Search Report in European Application No. 08102896.1, dated Sep. 5, 2008, 7 pages.
Grant, W.M., MD, Further Studies on Facility of Flow Through the Trabecular Meshwork, AMA Archives of Ophthalmology, Oct. 1958, vol. 60, pp. 523-533.
Green, K. et. al, “Fate of Anterior Chamber Tracers in the Living Rhesus Monkey Eye with Evidence for Uveo-Vortex Outflow,” Fourth William Mackenzie Memorial Symposium, 1977, pp. 731-739.
Hill, R.A., Q. Ren, D.C. Nguyen, L.H. Liaw, & M.W. Berns, Free-electron Laser (FEL) Ablation of Ocular Tissues, Lasers Med Sci 1998, vol. 13, pp. 219-226.
Hoerauf, Hans, Christopher Wirbelauer, Christian Scholz, Ralf Engelhardt, Peter Koch, Horst Laqua, and Reginald Birngruber, Slit-lamp-adapted optical coherence tomography of the anterior segment, Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2000, vol. 238, pp. 8-18.
Jacobi, Phillip C., MD, Thomas S. Dietlein, MD and Gunter K. Krieglstein, MD, Microendoscopic Trabecular Surgery in Glaucoma Management, Ophthalmology, 1999 vol. 106, No. 3, pp. 538-544
Jacobi, Phillip C., MD, Thomas S. Dietlein, MD and Gunter K. Krieglstein, MD, Bimanual Trabecular Aspiration in Pseudoexfoliation Glaucoma, Ophthalmology, 1998, vol. 105, No. 5, May 1998, pp. 886-894
Jacobi, Phillip C., MD, Thomas S. Dietlein, MD and Gunter K. Krieglstein, MD, Goniocurettage for Removing Trabecular Meshwork: Clinical Results of a new Surgical American Journal of Technique in Advanced Chronic Open-Angle Glaucoma, Ophthalmology, May 1999, pp. 505-510
Jocson, Vincente, L., M.D.; Air Trabeculotomy, American Journal of Ophthalmolgy: vol. 79, o. 1, Jan.-Jun. 1975; pp. 107-111.
Jordan, Jens, Thomas S. Dietlein, Sven Dinslage, Christoph Lüke, Walter Konen, Günter K. Krieglstein, Cyclodialysis ab interno as a surgical approach to intractable glaucoma, Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol (2007) 245:1071-1076.
Kampik, Anselm Franz Grehn, Nutzen and Risiken Augenärzticher Therapie, Hauptreferate der XXXII, Essener Fortbilding für Augenärtze, Dec. 1998. (English translated version enclosed Benefiets and Risks of Ophthalmological Therapy).
Krejci, L., “Cyclodialysis with Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate Capillary Strip (HCS),” Opthalmologica, vol. 164 (1972).
Lee, P.F. et al., “Aqueous-venous Shunt and Intraocular Pressure. Preliminary Report of Animal Studies.” (1966).
Luntz, Maurice H., MD & D.G. Livingston, B.SC., Trabeculotomy AB Externo & Trabeculectomy in Congenital and Adult-Onset Glaucoma, American Journal of Ophthalmology, Feb. 1977, vol. 83, No. 2, pp. 174-179.
Matsumoto, Yasuhiro and Douglas H. Johnson, Trabecular Meshwork Phagocytosis in Graucomatous Eyes, Ophthalmologica 1977, vol. 211, pp. 147-152.
McGehee, Blake E. et al., “Bilateral Retinal Detachment in a Patient with Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada Syndrome,” Emergency Radiology (2005) 11: 366-371.
Odrich, S., “New Technique During Complex Tube-Shunt Implantation,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 9 (2000).
Olsen, et al., “Cannulation of the Suprachoroidal Space: A Novel Drug Delivary Methodology to the Posterior Segment”, American Journal of Ophthalmology, Nov. 2006, pp. 777-787.e2 (13 pages).
Rohen, Johannes W., Grune & Stratton, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, edited by J.E. Cairns, Glaucoma, vol. 1, Chapter 14, Anatomy of the Aqueous Outflow Channels, 1986 pp. 277-296.
Rowan, MD, Combined Cyclodialysis and Cataract Surgery, Ophthalmic Surgery and Lasers, Dec. 1998, vol. 29, No. 12, pp. 962-968 (9 pages).
Shields, M. Bruce, Aqueous Humor Dynamics, Textbook of Glaucoma, Fourth Ed., Williams & Wilkins Publishers, 1998, Ch. 2, pp. 5-31.
Spiegel, Detliev, MD, Karin Kobuch, MD, Richard A. Hill, MD, Ronald L. Gross, MD, Schlemm's Canal Implant: A New Method to Lower Intraocular Pressure in Patients With POAG?, Opthalmic Surgery and Lasers, Jun. 1999, vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 492-494.
Strange, Kevin (edited by), Cellular and Molecular Physiology of Cell Volume Regulation, Library of Congress Cataloging in-Publication Data, CRC Press, Inc., 1994 pp. 312-321.
Troncoso, M.U. “Cyclodialysis with Insertion of a Metal Implant in the Treatment of Glaucoma,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 23 (1940).
Troncoso, M.U. “Use of the Tantalum Implants for Inducing a Permanent Hypotony in Rabbits' Eyes,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 32, No. 4 (1949).
Toris, Carol B. “Aqueous humor dynamics I.” Current topics in membranes. In: Civan, MM (Ed.) The Eye's Aqueous Humor, 62 (2008): 193-229).
The Glaucomas, 2nd Edition, Ritch, Robert, MD, et al, Chapter 15 “Uveoscleral Outflow” 1996.
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 8,579,846 (Mar. 3, 2014) (184 pages).
Glaukos Corporation's First Supplemental Response to Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Interrogatories Nos. 1-2, 4, 6 and 9 (Mar. 13, 2014) (12 pages).
Glaukos Corporation's Responses to Transcend Medica, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogations (Nos. 1-11) (Aug. 15, 2013).
Glaukos Corporation's Responses To Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Second Set Of Interrogatories (No. 12) dated Jun. 26, 2014.
Glaukos Corporation's Responses To Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Third Set Of Interrogatories (No. 13) dated Jul. 7, 2014.
Glaukos Corporation's Responses To Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Fourth Set Of Interrogatories (Nos. 14-15) dated Aug. 29, 2014.
Glaukos Corporation's Supplemental Response To Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Interrogatory No. 3 dated Aug. 29, 2014.
Glaukos Corporation's Responses To Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Sixth Set Of Interrogatories (Nos. 20-25) dated Nov. 21, 2014.
Glaukos Corporation's Supplemental Response To Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Third Set Of Interrogatories (No. 13) dated Nov. 21, 2014.
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s First Supplemental Response To Glaukos Corporation's Interrogatory No. 1 dated Dec. 23, 2013.
Redacted Exhibits A-C of Transcend Medical, Inc.'s First Supplemental Response To Glaukos Corporation's Interrogatory No. 1 dated Dec. 23, 2013.
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Responses and Objections To Glaukos Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories dated Oct. 24, 2013.
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Second Supplemental Response To Glaukos Corporation's Interrogatory No. 1 dated Mar. 3, 2014.
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Responses and Objections To Glaukos Corporation's Second Set of Interrogatories dated May 27, 2014.
Glaukos Corporation's Objections and Responses To Transcend Medical, Inc.'s First Set of Requests for Admission dated Aug. 29, 2014.
Amendment Accompanying Request for Continued Examination and Response to Office Action dated Mar. 16, 2010, filed in U.S. Appl. No. 10/987,114 (Jun. 15, 2010)(12 pages)
Notice of Allowability in U.S. Appl. No. 10/987,114 (Jul. 29, 2010)(3 pages).
Communication from European Patent Office for European App. No. 08102896.1 (Jul. 2, 2012) (5 pages).
Hoskins, H. Dunbar, et al., Diagnosis and Therapy of the Glaucomas, Chapter 4: Aqueous Humor Outflow, 6th edition, pp. 41-66 (1989) (28 pages).
Histology of the Human Eye, An Atlas and Textbook, Chapter Eight: Choroid (1971) (74 pages).
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Initial Disclosures, Served Jul. 30, 2013.
Glaukos Corporation's Initial Disclosures, Served Jul. 30, 2013.
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Supplemental Disclosures, Served Nov. 14, 2014.
Glaukos Corporation's Supplemental Disclosures, Served Oct. 29, 2014.
Deposition of John Richards, Dated Jun. 17, 2015.
Deposition Jay Katz Dated Jun. 10, 2015.
Deposition Jay Katz, Dated Oct. 1, 2014.
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Responses and Objections to Glaukos Corporation's First Set of Requests for Admission, Served Aug. 29, 2014.
Markman Hearing Transcript before Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg, Dated Nov. 13, 2014.
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Answer to Counterclaims, Served Jan. 13, 2014.
Joint Claim Construction Statement, Filed Jun. 20, 2014.
Answer and Counterclaim, Filed Jan. 3, 2014.
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Patent Non-Infringement and Invalidity, Filed Dec. 16, 2013.
Expert Report of Harold (Hal) J. Walbrink Regarding the Invalidity of Various Claims of the Patents in Suit and the Obviousness of Certain Claim Elements (Mar. 9, 2015) (63 pages).
Expert Report of Richard Lewis, M.D. (Mar. 9, 2015) (79 pages).
Rebuttal Expert Report of John Richards (Apr. 24, 2015) (16 pages).
Rebuttal Expert Report of L. Jay Katz MD. (Apr. 24, 2015) (130 pages).
Rebuttal Expert Report of Richard Lewis, M.D. (Apr. 24, 2015) (39 pages).
Rebuttal Expert Report of Ron Yamamoto (Apr. 24, 2015) (65 pages).
Expert Supplemental Report of Harold (Hal) J. Walbrink Regarding the Invalidity of Various Claims of The Patents-in-suit and the Obviousness of Certain Claim Elements (May 8, 2015) (17 pages).
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Second Supplemental Invalidity Contentions, Aug. 26, 2014, 39 pages.
Declaration of Joseph F. Jennings in Support of Glaukos's Opening Claim Construction Brief, Jul. 18, 2014, 237 pages.
Declaration of Dr. L. Jay Katz in Support of Glaukos's Opening Claim Construction Brief, Jul. 17, 2014, 78 pages.
Glaukos' Opening Claim Construction Brief, Jul. 18, 2014, 30 pages.
Transcends's Answering Claim Construction Brief, Aug. 15, 2014, 461 pages.
Glaukos Corporation's Reply Claim Construction Brief, Aug. 29, 2014, 14 pages.
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Redacted Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Patent Non-Infringement, Invalidity and Unenforceability, Sep. 10, 2014, 206 pages.
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Redacted Exhibit A to the Stipulation and Proposed Order for Second Amended Complaint and Amendment of Scheduling Order, Sep. 11, 2014, 205 pages.
Transcend Medical, Inc's Redacted Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief, Sep. 17, 2014, 14 pages.
Glaukos Corporation's Redacted Answer and Counterclaims to the Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Sep. 29, 2014, 27 pages.
Transcend's Answer to Counterclaims, Oct. 17, 2014, 10 pages.
G.B. Bietti, “The Present State of the Use of Plastics in Eye Surgery,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 33, No. 4, 1955, pp. 337-370, 34 pages.
Cullen et al., “Anterior Chamber to Frontal Sinus Shunt for the Diversion of Aqueous Humor: A Pilot Study in Four Normal Dogs,” Veterinary Ophthalmology, vol. 1, No. 1, 1998, pp. 31-39, 9 pages.
M. A. Coote, “Glaucoma Hollow Fiber Filters—A New Glaucoma Seton. Preliminary Results,” J. Glaucoma, vol. 8, No. 1, Supplement, 1999, p. S4, 1 page.
L. Krejci, “Cyclodialysis with Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate Capillary Strip (HCS),” Opthalmologica, vol. 164, 1972, pp. 113-121, 9 pages.
P.F. Lee and C.L. Schepens, “Aqueous-venous Shunt and Intraocular Pressure. Preliminary Report of Animal Studies,” Investigative Opthalmology, vol. 5, No. 1, Feb. 1966, pp. 59-64, 6 pages.
S. Odrich, “New Technique During Complex Tube-Shunt Implantation,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 9, No. 3, 2000, pp. 278-289, 2 pages.
G.L. Portney, “Silicone Elastomer Implantation Cyclodialysis,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 89, No. 1, Jan. 1973, pp. 10-12, 3 pages.
D. Spiegel, K. Kobuch, R. Hill, R. Gross, “Schlemm's Canal Implant: A New Method to Lower Intraocular Pressure in Patients with POAG?”, Opthalmic Surgery and Lasers, vol. 30, No. 6, Jun. 1999, pp. 492-494, 3 pages.
M.U. Troncoso, “Cyclodialysis with Insertion of a Metal Implant in the Treatment of Glaucoma,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 23, 1940, pp. 270-300, 31 pages.
M.U. Troncoso, “Use of Tantalum Implants for Inducing a Permanent Hypotony in Rabbits' Eyes,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 32, No. 4, Apr. 1949, pp. 499-508, 10 pages.
Excerpts from the certified Deposition Transcript of Richard A. Hill, M.D., Jul. 17, 2014, pp. 1, 3-4, 240-253, and 270.
Excerpts from the certified Deposition Transcript of Gregory Smedley, Ph.D., Aug. 6, 2014, pp. 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12, 99-102, 106-114, and 203.
Deposition Transcript of M. Bruce Shields dated Jun. 3, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Memorandum Opinion re Claim Construction dated Jan. 16, 2015.
Order re Claim Construction dated Jan. 16, 2015.
Glaukos's Motion for Summary Judgment on Transcend's Third Cause of Action for a Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability for Inequitable Conduct dated Jun. 12, 2015.
Glaukos's Opening Brief in Support of Glaukos's Motion for Summary Judgment on Transcend's Third Cause of Action for a Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability for Inequitable Conduct dated Jun. 12, 2015.
Glaukos's Statement of Undisputed Material Fact dated Jun. 12, 2015.
Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity dated Jun. 12, 2015.
Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated Jun. 12, 2015.
Transcend's Memorandum in Support of Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity dated Jun. 19, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Transcend's Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity dated Jun. 19, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Declaration of Vasquez in Support of Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated Jun. 19, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Declaration of Du Vergier in Support of Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated Jun. 19, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Response to Office Action Dated Sep. 18, 2009 (dated Mar. 18, 2010) from the prosecution history of U.S. Pat. No. 8,075,511 to Tu et al.
L. Jay Katz, Ciliochoroidal Detachment, 18:3 Ophthalmic Surgery 175, (Mar. 1987).
Tin A. Tun et al.,“Measurement of Trabecular Meshwork Width Using Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography—Abstract” (May 2012) available at: http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=6e904fa6-4f1b-406a-8fd9-3ad7551c527d&cKey=80031868-31bf-4b5e-8043-d3e5aedc7bf0 (last visited Jun. 12, 2015).
Tin A. Tun et al., Assessment of Trabecular Meshwork Width Using Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography, 251:6 Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 1587 (2013).
“Transcend Medical CyPass® System—Instructions for Use,” (Release date Apr. 29, 2013).
Hady Saheb et al., Optical Coherence Tomography of the Suprachoroid After CyPass Micro-Stent Implantation for the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma, Br. J. Ophthalmology, 98:19-23 (2014).
Helmut Hoeh et al., Early Postoperative Safety and Surgical Outcomes After Implantation of a Suprachoroidal Micro-Stent for the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma Concomitant with Cataract Surgery, 39 J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 431 (2013).
Nir Shoham-Hazon et al., “Stability and Predictive Value of OCT Findings After CyPass Suprachoroidal Micro-Stent Implantation,” available at: http://transcendmedical.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/TM-AGS-2012-F2-final.pdf (last visited Jun. 12, 2015).
Schocket, Investigations of the Reasons for Success and Failure in the Anterior Shunt-to-the Encircling-Band Procedure in the Treatment of Refractory Glaucoma, Tr. Am. Ophth. Soc., 84:743 (1986).
Excerpt of Ramesh C. Tripathi & Brenda J. Tripathi, Chapter 1: Anatomy of the Human Eye, Orbit, and Adnexa, in Ramesh C. Tripathi & Brenda J. Tripathi, The Eye (Academic Press, Inc. 1984).
Final Office Action (dated Jun. 9, 2014) from the prosecution history of U.S. Appl. No. 13/786,357.
Declaration of Alyse Katz in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity dated Jun. 19, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
U.S. Appl. No. 60/281,973, entitled “Glaucoma Shunt and Methods Thereof for Glaucoma Treatment,” to Tu (filed Apr. 17, 2001).
Communication of the Board of Appeal Pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal, submitted in the prosecution history of EP1977724, dated May 8, 2014 (Board of Appeal Communication, EP1977724.
Decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.08 of Jan. 15, 2015, submitted in the prosecution history of EP1977724, dated Jan. 15, 2015.
Webpage regarding the definition of “subchoroidal” from Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary, available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/subchoroidal (last visited Jun. 11, 2015).
Petition to Correct Inventorship in a Patent Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.324, filed in the prosecution history of U.S. Pat. No. 7,857,782 dated May 2014.
Petition to Correct Inventorship in a Patent Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.324, filed in the prosecution history of U.S. Pat. No. 8,075,511 dated May 2014.
Petition to Correct Inventorship in a Patent Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.324, filed in the prosecution history of U.S. Pat. No. 8,579,846 dated May 2014.
Correspondence from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granting the petition to correct inventorship, filed in the prosecution history of U.S. Pat. No. 7,857,782 (dated Nov. 18, 2014).
Correspondence from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granting the petition to correct inventorship, filed in the prosecution history of U.S. Pat. No. 8,075,511 (dated Oct. 31, 2014).
Correspondence from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granting the petition to correct inventorship, filed in the prosecution history of U.S. Pat. No. 8,579,846 (dated Feb. 10, 2015).
Declaration of Joshua Stowell in Support of Glaukos's Motion for Summary Judgment on Transcend's Third Cause of Action for a Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability for Inequitable Conduct dated Jun. 19, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Excerpts from the file history of U.S. Pat. No. 7,563,241 dated Mar. 13, 2009.
Transcend's Responses and Objections to Glaukos Corporation's Fifth Set of Interrogatories dated Nov. 20, 2014.
Transcend's First Supplemental Response to Glaukos Corporation's Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18 dated May 13, 2014.
Excerpts from the certified Deposition Transcript of Barbara Niksch, dated Jun. 6, 2014.
Office Action from the USPTO dated Jun. 28, 2010 and Glaukos's response to that Office Action from the file history of U.S. Pat. No. 8,075,511.
Office Action from the USPTO dated Sep. 18, 2009 and Glaukos's response to that Office Action from the file history of U.S. Pat. No. 8,075,511.
Notice of Allowance issued by the USPTO from the file history of U.S. Pat. No. 8,579,846 (signed by Examiner Jul. 31, 2013).
Excerpts from the certified Deposition Transcript of David Haffner, dated May 28, 2014.
Declaration of Richard Lewis M.D. In Support of Glaukos's Oppositions to Transcend's Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity dated Jul. 2, 2015.
Declaration of Ron Yamamoto in Support of Glaukos's Opposition to Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity dated Jul. 2, 2015.
Declaration of John Richards in Support of Glaukos's Opposition to Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity dated Jul. 2, 2015.
Glaukos's Opposition to Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity dated Jul. 2, 2015.
Transcend's Memorandum in Opposition to Glaukos' Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct dated Jul. 9, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Declaration of Julien Du Vergier in Support of Transcend's Opposition to Glaukos' Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct dated Jul. 9, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Transcend's Response and Statement of Further Undisputed Facts in Support of its Opposition to Glaukos' Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct dated Jul. 9, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Website entitled, “About Glaukos—History,” available at: http://www.glaukos.com/about-glaukos/history (last accessed Jun. 29, 2015).
Excerpt from the prosecution history of U.S. Pat. No. 7,857,782, including the Inventor Declaration dated Jun. 14, 2002.
Excerpt from the prosecution history of U.S. Pat. No. 8,075,511, including the Inventor Declaration dated Jun. 14, 2002.
Excerpt from the prosecution history of U.S. Pat. No. 8,579,846, including the Inventor Declaration dated Jun. 14, 2002.
Excerpt from the prosecution history of U.S. Appl. No. 09/549,350, including the Inventor Declaration (dated Aug./Sep. 2000).
Excerpt from the prosecution history of U.S. Appl. No. 09/704,276, including the Inventor Declaration (dated Feb. 2001).
U.S. Appl. No. 09/704,276, filed Nov. 1, 2000 [now U.S. Pat. No. 6,736,791].
Excerpt of the transcript from the deposition of David Schetter on Dec. 18, 2014.
U.S. Appl. No. 60/276,609, filed Mar. 16, 2001.
Request for Correction of Inventorship Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.48(d), dated May 27, 2014 and filed in the prosecution history of U.S. Appl. No. 60/281,973.
“Changing Perspectives in Glaucoma Management,” Innovations in Glaucoma 2010.
Richard Hill, MD, “Inventor's Perspective,” Glaucoma Today (Nov./Dec. 2012).
Website entitled, “2013 Ophthalmology Innovation Summit Innovator Awards,” dated Nov. 14, 2013 available at: http://ois.net/2013-ophthalmology-innovator-award/ (last visited Jun. 29, 2015).
Excerpt of Transcend's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Glaukos Corporation dated Jul. 16, 2013.
Excerpt of Transcend's First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Glaukos Corporation dated Jul. 16, 2013.
Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action propounded on Dr. Richard A. Hill, Feb. 11, 2014.
Glaukos's Opposition to Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated Jul. 9, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Glaukos's Statement of Material Facts that Present Genuine Issues for Trial in Opposition to Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated Jul. 9, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Declaration of L. Jay Katz in Support of Glaukos's Oppositions to Transcend's Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity dated Jul. 9, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Declaration of Joshua Stowell in Support of Glaukos's Opposition to Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity dated Jul. 9, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Excerpts from the certified Deposition Transcript of Richard Lewis, M.D., dated Jun. 5, 2015.
Excerpts from the certified Deposition Transcript of Joseph Caprioli, M.D., dated May 27, 2015.
Excerpts from the certified Deposition Transcript of Ron Yamamoto, dated May 22, 2015.
Glaukos's Statement of Material Facts that Present Genuine Issues for Trial in Opposition to Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity dated Jul. 9, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Declaration of Joseph F. Jennings in Support of Glaukos's Opposition to Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated Jul. 9, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Transcend's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity dated Jul. 17, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Declaration of Alyse L. Katz in Support of Transcend's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity [Redacted-Public Version].
Amendment and Response to Office Action, filed in the prosecution of U.S. Appl. No. 13/786,357 on May 6, 2014.
Transcend's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated Jul. 17, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Declaration of Julien Du Vergier in Support of Transcend's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated Jul. 17, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Glaukos's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Transcend's Third Cause of Action for a Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability for Inequitable Conduct dated Jul. 17, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Second Declaration of Joshua Stowell in Support of Glaukos's Motion for Summary Judgment on Transcend's Third Cause of Action for a Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability for Inequitable Conduct dated Jul. 17, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Transcend's Letter to Judge Regarding Citation Errors and Missing Exhibit Pages in Briefing Papers dated Jul. 28, 2015.
Memorandum Opinion in connection with Summary Judgment on the Issue of Invalidity, dated Sep. 18, 2015.
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity, dated Sep. 18, 2015.
Memorandum Opinion in connection with Summary Judgment on the Issue of Infringement, dated Sep. 18, 2015.
Order Granting Transcend Medical Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, dated Sep. 18, 2015.
Memorandum Opinion in connection with Summary Judgment Regarding Unenforceability due to Inequitable Conduct, dated Sep. 18, 2015.
Order Denying Glaukos Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Unenforceability due to Inequitable Conduct, dated Sep. 18, 2015.
Proposed Pretrial Order, dated Sep. 30, 2015.
Declaration of Joseph F. Jennings in Support of Glaukos's Opening Claim Construction Brief (Jul. 18, 2014) (237 pages).
Transcend Medical, Inc.'s Responses and Objections to Glaukos Corporation's Fourth Set of Interrogatories, Served Aug. 29, 2014 [Redacted-Public Version].
Transcend's Memorandum in Support of Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated Jun. 19, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Transcend's Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Transcend's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated Jun. 19, 2015 [Redacted-Public Version].
Tsontcho Ianchulev et al., “Minimally Invasive Ab-Interno Suprachoroidal Device (CyPass) for IOP Control in Open-Angle Glaucoma,” presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology Oct. 16-19, 2010, Chicago, IL.
Partial File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,638,239 (Apr. 14, 2000) (36 pages).
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/111,033 (Sep. 18, 2009) (10 pages).
Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/111,033 (Mar. 18, 2010) (15 pages).
Interview Summary in U.S. Appl. No. 12/979,249, mailed May 29, 2013.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/979,249, mailed Jun. 3, 2014.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/979,249, mailed Oct. 1,2014.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/979,249, mailed Jan. 21, 2015.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/979,249, mailed Feb. 25, 2016.
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/786,357 (May 6, 2014) (46 pages).
Patent Publication Number: 20130245532
Inventors: Hosheng Tu (Newport Coast, CA), Barbara A. Niksch (Capistrano Beach, CA), David Steven Haffner (Mission Viejo, CA), Gregory T. Smedley (Aliso Viejo, CA), Richard A. Hill (Irvine, CA), Olav B. Bergheim (Laguna Hills, CA)
Application Number: 13/786,363
International Classification: A61M 5/00 (20060101); A61M 27/00 (20060101); A61F 9/007 (20060101);