Untitled case

Case Overview: OsteoMed LLC v. Stryker Corp. in the Northern District of Illinois

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-06821, is currently before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, presided over by Judge Steven C. Seeger. The plaintiff, OsteoMed LLC, is a medical device company that designs, manufactures, and markets implantable devices for foot and ankle surgery, including its "ExtremiLOCK™ Foot Plating System." The defendant is Stryker Corporation, a prominent multinational medical technology corporation, which also manufactures medical devices, specifically competing "Anchorage CP plating systems" for foot and ankle surgery. OsteoMed alleges that Stryker's Anchorage system infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,763,716, among others. The '716 patent generally relates to bone plating systems used in orthopedic surgery, particularly for securing bone fragments.

The procedural posture of the case began with OsteoMed filing suit in late 2020. Stryker answered the complaint and subsequently, its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Howmedica Osteonics Corp. and Stryker European Operations Holdings LLC, successfully moved to intervene as defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs, asserting their own patent infringement counterclaims against OsteoMed involving U.S. Patent Nos. 9,078,713 and 9,168,074. The Northern District of Illinois is a notable venue for patent litigation, ranking among the top federal courts for patent case filings nationally and having participated in a ten-year Patent Pilot Program to enhance judicial experience in such cases. While the district is particularly known for a high volume of design patent infringement cases against e-commerce counterfeiters (often referred to as "Schedule A" cases), this specific dispute involves utility patents between two established operating companies in the medical device industry.

This case is significant within the medical device industry due to the assertion of patents related to common orthopedic surgical implants like foot and ankle plating systems between two major players, OsteoMed and Stryker. The outcome could impact the competitive landscape for these types of surgical fixation devices. While related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings have been identified for a different patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,993,751) where this district court case is noted as a related matter, there is no public information confirming that U.S. Patent No. 9,763,716 itself is currently or has been subjected to an IPR challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The involvement of multiple patents and the intervention of Stryker's subsidiaries underscore the complexity and strategic importance of this intellectual property dispute in the highly competitive medical technology sector.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcome for the patent infringement litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-06821, in the Illinois Northern District Court, involving US Patent 9,763,716:

Case Caption: OsteoMed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
Case Number: 1:20-cv-06821
Court: Illinois Northern District Court
Patents at issue: 9,763,716 (among others)

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, Counterclaims)

• The initial complaint was filed by OsteoMed LLC against Stryker Corp. in the Northern District of Illinois.
• Stryker Corp. answered the complaint and asserted seven counterclaims. Four of these counterclaims sought a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity concerning OsteoMed's four patents, which includes patent 9,763,716. The remaining three counterclaims alleged that OsteoMed was infringing two of Stryker's patents: 9,078,713 and 9,168,074.
• Stryker's wholly-owned subsidiaries, Howmedica and Stryker European, filed motions to intervene in the case. Howmedica sought to intervene as a defendant, citing its role as the exclusive distributor of the allegedly infringing product, the Anchorage plating system. Both subsidiaries also aimed to join as counterclaim plaintiffs.
• On May 17, 2021, the Court granted Howmedica's request to intervene as a defendant, finding that allowing its intervention would not cause undue delay or prejudice any party. The Court also noted that Howmedica, as an intervenor, could bring noncompulsory counterclaims.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• No information about specific motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR was found in the provided search results beyond the initial motions to intervene.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• No specific Markman hearing or claim construction outcomes for patent 9,763,716 were found in the provided search results.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• No details regarding significant discovery milestones were found in the provided search results.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• No information regarding a trial, verdict, or post-trial motions was found in the provided search results.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The current posture of the case or its final disposition (settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal) is not explicitly stated in the provided search results. The available information primarily pertains to the early stages of the litigation, particularly the pleadings and motions to intervene.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• A search for PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically for US patent 9,763,716 did not yield any direct results in the provided snippets. The general information about PTAB proceedings indicates they are an alternative to traditional patent litigation, often faster and less expensive, and involve challenging patentability based on prior art. The PTAB has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents and the Board's decisions on institution are generally not appealable. While the PTAB may allow multiple concurrent petitions in rare circumstances, especially when a large number of claims are asserted in litigation, no such filings were found for the patent in question. Without specific IPR filings for 9,763,716, their effect on this litigation cannot be determined.The initial search successfully identified the parties involved, the initial pleadings, and the outcome of the motions to intervene. However, it did not provide information on claim construction, discovery, trial, final disposition, or parallel PTAB proceedings specifically for patent 9,763,716. Therefore, I need to continue searching for these aspects of the case. I will refine my search queries to be more specific about the patent at issue and various stages of the litigation.### Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Case No. 1:20-cv-06821 (OsteoMed LLC v. Stryker Corp.)

Patents at issue: US Patent 9,763,716 (among others)

This case, filed in the Illinois Northern District Court, involves patent infringement allegations by OsteoMed LLC against Stryker Corp., with counterclaims and intervention by Stryker's subsidiaries.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, Counterclaims)

• Complaint: OsteoMed LLC filed a complaint against Stryker Corp. alleging patent infringement.
• Answer & Counterclaims: Stryker Corp. answered the complaint and asserted seven counterclaims. Four of these sought declarations of non-infringement and invalidity for OsteoMed's patents, which include patent 9,763,716. The other three counterclaims alleged that OsteoMed was infringing Stryker's patents 9,078,713 and 9,168,074.
• Motions to Intervene: Stryker's wholly-owned subsidiaries, Howmedica and Stryker European, filed motions to intervene. Howmedica sought to intervene as a defendant, being the exclusive distributor of the allegedly infringing "Anchorage plating system." Both also sought to intervene as counterclaim plaintiffs.
• Intervention Ruling: On May 17, 2021, the Court granted Howmedica's motion to intervene as a defendant, finding it would not cause undue delay or prejudice. The Court acknowledged that Howmedica, once a party, could bring noncompulsory counterclaims.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• No further information regarding other substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR, has been found in the provided search results.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• No specific Markman hearing or claim construction orders related to patent 9,763,716 have been identified in the provided search results.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• No details regarding significant discovery milestones have been found in the provided search results.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• No information concerning a trial, jury verdict, or post-trial motions has been found in the provided search results.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition or Present Posture

• The provided search results do not contain information on the final disposition of the case, such as a settlement, dismissal, judgment, or any appeals. The current posture of the litigation beyond the initial pleadings and intervention motions remains unclear from the available data.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents

• A search for parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically for US patent 9,763,716 did not yield any results in the provided snippets. Without such filings, there is no information on their effect on this litigation. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) provides an administrative process for challenging patent validity, often seen as a faster and less expensive alternative to district court litigation. Decisions by the Director of the USPTO on whether to institute an IPR are generally considered final and nonappealable.

Counsel for Plaintiff OsteoMed LLC

The plaintiff, OsteoMed LLC, in the patent infringement case 1:20-cv-06821 in the Illinois Northern District Court, is represented by attorneys from K&L Gates LLP.

The following are the identified counsel of record for OsteoMed LLC:

• Jason A. Engel
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: K&L Gates LLP, Chicago, IL (70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100, Chicago, IL 60602)
  • Relevant Experience: Jason Engel is a registered patent attorney and is listed as lead counsel for OsteoMed LLC in a related inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning patents also asserted in the district court case. His practice at K&L Gates encompasses various intellectual property matters.
• Alan L. Barry
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: K&L Gates LLP, Chicago, IL (70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100, Chicago, IL 60602)
  • Relevant Experience: Alan Barry is noted as counsel for OsteoMed LLC in this patent infringement case and in a related case, OsteoMed LLC v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (D. Del.). His involvement in these matters suggests experience in patent litigation.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in the patent infringement case 1:20-cv-06821 in the Illinois Northern District Court:

Defendant: Stryker Corporation and Intervenor-Defendant Howmedica Osteonics Corp. [cite: 10 in prior step]

Counsel:

• Name: Michael J. Abernathy

  • Role: Lead Counsel (for Stryker Corporation) [cite: 12 in prior step]
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Concentrates on patent, trade secret, and antitrust litigation, with first-chair trial experience in biopharma and technology cases, including those involving pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

• Name: Scott D. Sherwin

  • Role: Counsel (for Stryker Corporation)
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Focuses on patent litigation, including in US district courts and before the ITC, with a co-leadership role in the firm's IP MedTech Working Group focusing on medical devices.

• Name: Zachary D. Miller

  • Role: Counsel (for Stryker Corporation)
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation with a chemical engineering background, emphasizing pharmaceutical, biologic, and medical device matters.

While Michael P. Furmanek of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP is an experienced patent litigator in Chicago with expertise in medical devices and is admitted to practice in the Northern District of Illinois, direct confirmation of his appearance as counsel of record for the defendant(s) in this specific case (1:20-cv-06821) was not found in the available search results.