Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/169527172/ConforMIS-v-Wright-Medical-Group-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-05-28 15:55:08
Document Index: 379820968

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

ConforMIS v. Wright Medical Group et. al. | Medical Imaging | Injunction
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadConforMIS v. Wright Medical Group et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartMedical ImagingInjunctionPatentLawsuitPatent Infringement0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-12312: ConforMIS, Inc. v. Wright Medical Group, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, n...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-12312: ConforMIS, Inc. v. Wright Medical Group, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l99z for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION CONFORMIS, INC., Plaintiff, v.WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., and WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CIVIL ACTION NO. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff ConforMIS, Inc. (“ConforMIS”) files this Complaint for Patent Infringement against Defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc. and Wright Medical Group, Inc. (collectively “Wright Medical”) and hereby alleges on personal knowledge as to its own activities, and on information and belief as to the activities of others, as follows: I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
ConforMIS’s Ground-Breaking Intellectual Property 1. ConforMIS is the world’s leading designer, developer, and manufacturer of
patient-specific knee implants as well as the surgical tools required to best fit those implants into a specific patient’s body. Founded by doctors affiliated with Stanford and Harvard Medical Schools, ConforMIS began with a revolutionary idea: make the implant fit the patient rather than forcing the patient to fit the implant. 2. For decades before ConforMIS’s innovation and continuing today, implant
manufacturers have been offering a standard set of implant sizes, akin to the small-medium-large sizing in off-the-rack department stores, from which a surgeon could select. This approach forces the surgeon to pick an implant size that, in the surgeon’s judgment, appears closest in fit to the patient’s anatomy, but that is not designed for and that does not truly fit the individual patient’s articular geometry. The surgeon, therefore, is forced to make a number of size, shape
backwards: rather than fitting the patient to the implant, the implant should be designed and developed specifically for the patient. This not only produces a better-fitting implant but also an implant shape that feels more natural to the patient because patients vary physiologically in the size, dimensions, shape, position, orientation, and range of motion of their joints. 5. ConforMIS therefore set out to develop its proprietary iFit® technology to create
both patient-specific implants and instruments. ConforMIS implants are individually sized and shaped to fit each patient’s unique anatomy, providing a precise anatomic fit and preserving healthy tissue while leading to better function and a more natural feel. ConforMIS patientspecific instrument systems, which use ConforMIS’s iJig® technology, precisely place the patient-specific implant, reduce surgical time and trauma, and create a reproducible surgical technique. ConforMIS iJigs eliminate many of the traditional instruments associated with conventional surgery while concurrently simplifying and improving the surgical technique. 6. By combining personalized implants with patient-specific instrumentation, a
surgeon is able to provide treatment that: a) is tailored to the patient; b) preserves more of the patient’s joint; and c) minimizes surgical trauma. These patient-specific implant systems fit and work with the individual patient’s anatomy. 7. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ConforMIS knee-implant
systems for use in the United States. The European Union has likewise done so for use in Europe. ConforMIS currently sells a full line of patient-specific knee-implant systems in many countries worldwide. To date, ConforMIS’s patient-specific knee implants and customized tools have helped improve the lives of thousands of Americans, many of whom live in Massachusetts.
ConforMIS’s novel idea to fit the implant to the patient has received consistent
industry acclaim. ConforMIS’s iTotal® knee-replacement system won the 2011 American Technology Award, the only national “Best Of” award that recognizes products and services across the technology industry. ConforMIS has twice won Medical Design Excellence Awards, the premier awards program for the medical technology community. In 2009, ConforMIS’s iUni® and iDuo® knee-resurfacing implants won the gold medal among implant and tissuereplacement products. In 2012, ConforMIS’s iTotal CR Knee Replacement System won the silver medal in the same category. 9. ConforMIS has developed significant intellectual property associated with its iFit
technology, its patient-specific implants, and its iJig patient-specific instruments, including a large portfolio of patents and pending patent applications. These patents and patent applications span a range of related technologies including imaging software, image processing, patientspecific orthopedic implants, patient-specific orthopedic instrumentation, methods of design and manufacture of patient-specific systems, and related surgical techniques. The technology and patent portfolio are applicable to all major joint systems, including knee, hip, shoulder, and ankle joints. Wright Medical’s Infringement of ConforMIS’s Intellectual Property 10. Wright Medical offers a line of patient-specific instruments for use with its
standard, off-the-shelf implants. Wright Medical markets these patient-specific instruments as its PROPHECY Pre-Operative Navigation Guides and PROPHECY INBONE Pre-Operative Navigation System. 11. Wright Medical’s patient-specific PROPHECY guides infringe fundamental
aspects of ConforMIS’s intellectual-property portfolio, including pin-first instruments and systems, resection-guide instruments and systems, patient-specific instrument systems that register to cartilage, patient-specific instruments that register to bone, MRI-based patient-specific technology, CT-based patient-specific technology, knee-joint systems, ankle-joint systems, and systems for other joints.
guides and as alignment-and-resection guides. 13. PROPHECY pin-alignment guides are “pin-first” devices that align surgical pins
to secure a standard, off-the-shelf resection guide, which is used to resect a joint during surgery. PROPHECY pin alignment guides infringe various ConforMIS patent claims, including patent claims related to pin-first devices. 14. PROPHECY alignment-and-resection guides are “cut guide” devices that
U.S. Patent No. 7,534,263 (“the ’263 Patent”), entitled “Surgical Tools Facilitating Increased Accuracy, Speed and Simplicity in Performing Joint Arthroplasty,” to Albert G. Burdulis, Jr., Wolfgang Fitz, Rene Vargas-Voracek, Philipp Lang, Daniel Steines, and Konstantinos Tsougarakis. ConforMIS is the owner by assignment of the ’263 Patent. A copy of the ’263 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 24. On November 22, 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued U.S. Patent No. 8,062,302 (“the ’302 Patent”), entitled “Surgical Tools for Arthroplasty,” to Philipp Lang, Wolfgang Fitz, Ray Bojarski, Daniel Steines, Albert G. Burdulis, and Rene Vargas-Voracek. ConforMIS is the owner by assignment of the ’302 Patent. A copy of the ’302 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 25. On November 29, 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued U.S. Patent No. 8,066,708 (“the ’708 Patent”), entitled “Patient Selectable Joint
Arthroplasty Devices and Surgical Tools,” to Philipp Lang, Wolfgang Fitz, Raymond A. Bojarski, Daniel Steines, Albert G. Burdulis, Jr., and Rene Vargas-Voracek. ConforMIS is the owner by assignment of the ’708 Patent. A copy of the ’708 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 26. On June 11, 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued
U.S. Patent No. 8,460,304 (“the ’304 Patent”), entitled “Joint Arthroplasty Devices and Surgical Tools,” to Wolfgang Fitz, Philipp Lang, Daniel Steines, Konstantinos Tsougarakis, and Rene Vargas-Voracek. ConforMIS is the owner by assignment of the ’304 Patent. A copy of the ’304 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 27. ConforMIS is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’263 Patent,
the ’302 Patent, the ’708 Patent, and the ’304 Patent (collectively “ConforMIS Patents”). ConforMIS possesses all rights to sue and recover for past and future infringement of the ConforMIS Patents. 28. Wright Medical has infringed, and continues to infringe, directly, contributorily,
and/or through the inducement of others, the claimed apparatuses and methods of the ConforMIS Patents through at least the PROPHECY Pre-Operative Navigation Guides and the PROPHECY INBONE Pre-Operative Navigation System that Wright Medical makes, uses, imports, exports, sells, and/or offers for sale. Given the ConforMIS Patents’ groundbreaking nature and Wright Medical’s infringement of these patents, on information and belief, Wright Medical is aware of the ConforMIS Patents, has knowledge of the infringing nature of its activities, but has nevertheless continued its infringing activities, and that infringing activity has been and continues to be willful. 29. 30. Each of the ConforMIS Patents is valid and enforceable. ConforMIS has been damaged as a result of Wright Medical’s infringing conduct
and Wright Medical is liable to ConforMIS in an amount that adequately compensates ConforMIS for Wright Medical’s infringement, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court. Wright Medical’s acts have also caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over ConforMIS’s claims asserted
herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because those claims arise under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. 32. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Wright Medical, which has conducted
navigation guides and systems in the District of Massachusetts, and has a significant commercial presence in the District of Massachusetts. 34. Venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and
28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the ’263 Patent) 35. ConforMIS incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as
though fully set forth in this Paragraph. 36. Wright Medical has been and is now directly infringing the ’263 Patent by
making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting at least the PROPHECY line of products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ’263 Patent, including without limitation claim 1. Wright Medical also has been and is now contributing to and/or inducing others, such as doctors in the District of Massachusetts, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’263 Patent. Wright Medical’s actions violate one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c), (f), and (g). 37. Wright Medical’s acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will
continue to cause, irreparable injury and damage to ConforMIS for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, Wright Medical will continue to infringe the ’263 Patent. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the ’302 Patent) 38. ConforMIS incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as
though fully set forth in this Paragraph. 39. Wright Medical has been and is now directly infringing the ’302 Patent by
making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting at least the PROPHECY line of products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ’302 Patent, including without limitation claim 1. Wright Medical also has been and is now contributing to and/or inducing others, such as doctors in the District of Massachusetts, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’302 Patent. Wright Medical’s actions violate one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c), (f), and (g). 40. Wright Medical’s acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will
continue to cause, irreparable injury and damage to ConforMIS for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, Wright Medical will continue to infringe the ’302 Patent.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the ’708 Patent) 41. ConforMIS incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as
though fully set forth in this Paragraph. 42. Wright Medical has been and is now directly infringing the ’708 Patent by
making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting at least the PROPHECY line of products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ’708 Patent, including without limitation claim 23. Wright Medical also has been and is now contributing to and/or inducing others, such as doctors in the District of Massachusetts, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’708 Patent. Wright Medical’s actions violate one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c), (f), and (g). 43. Wright Medical’s acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will
continue to cause, irreparable injury and damage to ConforMIS for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, Wright Medical will continue to infringe the ’708 Patent. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the ’304 Patent) 44. ConforMIS incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as
though fully set forth in this Paragraph. 45. Wright Medical has been and is now directly infringing the ’304 Patent by
making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing into the United States, and/or exporting at least the PROPHECY line of products that practice or embody one or more claims of the ’304 Patent, including without limitation claim 1. Wright Medical also has been and is now contributing to and/or inducing others, such as doctors in the District of Massachusetts, to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’304 Patent. Wright Medical’s actions violate one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c), (f), and (g). 46. Wright Medical’s acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will
continue to cause, irreparable injury and damage to ConforMIS for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by this Court, Wright Medical will continue to infringe the ’304 Patent. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
resulting from Wright Medical’s infringement of the ConforMIS Patents, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 50. Trebling of damages and pre-judgment interest under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in view of
the willful and deliberate nature of Wright Medical’s infringement of the ConforMIS Patents; 51. § 285; and 52. Any and all other legal and/or equitable relief as may be available under law and An order awarding ConforMIS its costs and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C.
Documents Similar To ConforMIS v. Wright Medical Group et. al.Skip carouselQuantum Q RadPeschke Map Technologies v. Madison Marquette Retail Services et. al.MAZ Encryption Technologies v. Hewlett-Packard Company et. al.MAZ Encryption Technologies v. DellPeschke Map Technologies LLCSarif Biomedical v. Brainlab et. al.F3DT_FD_UserManualProgressive Semiconductor Solutions v. Qualcomm Techonologies et. al.CTP Innovations v. Progress Printing CompanySkechers et. al. v. Anthony L and S et. al.Infinite Data v. Credit SuisseInfinite Data v. Federal ExpressInfinite Data v. McDonald'sInfinite Data v. JPMorgan ChaseInfinite Data v. Clorox CompanyInfinite Data v. Boeing CompanyInfinite Data v. ChevronInfinite Data v. Ford Motor CompanyInfinite Data v. BP AmericaInfinite Data v. Shell Oil CompanyFish Skeleton Imaging- Clinical Implications. Dr. Rao Papineni and Dr.Doris AuDel Rosario v. CA, Gr 115106 IPLG.R. No 82330 (Ayer vs. Capulong)VP or Sr. VP or COOProgram Cluj 2(1)Petition for Annulment of JudgmentLippert Components Manufacturing v. Actuant et. al.Johns Hopkins v Alcon ComplaintRemcom Case StudyStipulated order in lieu of TRODocuments About Medical ImagingSkip carouselSegmentation Techniques for Medical Image AnalysisA Proposed Method of Medical Image Fusion using Non-Subsampled Counterlet Transform and Wavelet TransformA Review of different method of Medical Image SegmentationGlobal market for medical laser devices to grow to $6.8 billion in 20162014-03-13 The Calvert GazetteA Survey On Various Watermarking and Cryptography Techniques for Data Hiding in Medical ImagesMN_2014-12-09Medical Image De-Noising Using Wavelet TransformHOUSE HEARING, 109TH CONGRESS - USE OF IMAGING SERVICESImages Rocky Mount 2011-2012River Valley News Shopper, March 5, 2012As 4700.7-2005 Implementation of Health Level Seven (HL7) Version 2.3.1 Diagnostic Imaging Orders and ResultsAs NZS 4184.1-1994 Evaluation and Routine Testing in Medical Imaging Departments General AspectsAs NZS 4184.2.2-1994 Evaluation and Routine Testing in Medical Imaging Departments Constancy Tests - RadiograAs NZS 4184.2.5-1995 Evaluation and Routine Testing in Medical Imaging Departments Constancy Tests - Image DiAs NZS 4184.2.6-1995 Evaluation and Routine Testing in Medical Imaging Departments Constancy Tests - X-Ray EqAs NZS 4184.3.1-2002 Evaluation and Routine Testing in Medical Imaging Departments Acceptance Tests - ImagingHeart Imaging Technologies v. Merge HealthcaretmpC467Medical Image Fusion Using Multiresolution TransformstmpFDCC.tmpAbbott Radiology Associates Javaid Asgher, M.D., P.C. Bailey Radiology, P.C. Batavia Radiology Group, P.C. Buffalo General X-Ray Associates Clarence Sheridan Radiology Group, P.C. Elmwood Radiologists, P.C. Diagnostic Imaging Associates Saleh A. Petouh, D/B/A Breast Screening Center of Wny, M.D., P.C. A. Paul Greiner, M.D., P.C. Harlem Radiology, P.C. Lancaster Radiology Meadowlands Imaging Group, P.C. Millard Fillmore Hospital Radiologists, M.D., Billing Agent Niagara Radiologists, P.C. North Tonawanda X-Ray Center, P.C. Nuclear Medicine Associates Olean Radiology Associates, P.C. Alvin M. Panahon, M.D. Radiologic Physicians of W.N.Y., P.C. C. Riggio, M.D. Riggio & Tetwesky, M.D.S., P.C. Sisters Diagnostic Imaging Associates Southtowns Radiological Group, P.C. Gowanda Radiologists Lakeshore Radiologists Hamburg Radiologists Tremont Radiological Group, and Ultrasound Associates v. Donna E. Shalala, as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Health andUT Dallas Syllabus for acn6v81.001.08s taught by Emily Tobey (etobey)UT Dallas Syllabus for hcs6310.001.07s taught by Emily Tobey (etobey)UT Dallas Syllabus for acn6v81.001.07s taught by Emily Tobey (etobey)Search of Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Images Using Active Shape ModelINDEPENDENT STATE AUDITOR’S REPORT ON CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE OFFICE OF MEDICAID AS ADMINISTERED BY MASSHEALTH IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ADVANCED IMAGING PROCEDURESAdvancing Nuclear Medicine Through Innovation , Report In BriefVisualizing Chemistry, Report in Brieftmp457More From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment