Invalidity dossier
US 6978188
Added 9/23/2026, 11:48:57 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 6978188 B1
Title: Method for contouring bone reconstruction plates
Inventor: Andrew M. Christensen
Original assignee: Medical Modeling LLC (later listed as 3D Systems, Inc.)
Priority date: 2002-09-30 (provisional 60/414,583); filed: 2003-09-30; granted: 2005-12-20
Status: Expired – Lifetime, adjusted expiration 2023-12-22
Purpose: To reduce costly operating-room time and improve fit when repairing bone after traumatic injury, congenital disease, or other pathology. Traditionally, surgeons bend strong metallic (e.g., titanium, stainless steel, cobalt-chrome) or polymer (PLA, PLGA) rigid-fixation plates during surgery, sometimes using an aluminum or tin "template" conformed to the patient's anatomy. That bending can take 30–60 minutes and may not match the patient's opposite side, leaving a less desirable result. Embodiments instead provide computer-designed, custom-made templates for direct implantation or for pre-contouring plates before surgery.
Plain-language scope: Per the abstract and description, the method receives medical image data of the patient's surrounding anatomy, performs three-dimensional surface reconstruction from that data, virtually removes the bone (or portion) to be reconstructed by simulating the contemplated surgical implantation, creates a representation of a template contoured to fit the patient's anatomy to be repaired, and produces a replica of the template using Solid Freeform Fabrication (SFF) techniques. The template is designed with the surgeon's interaction, using medical image data and SFF; results may be delivered via Extranet, secure portal, VPN, or similar infrastructure. The description frames steps as implementable in hardware, software, or combinations thereof, including as a computer program product.
What the excerpt does not establish: The supplied text contains no claims, no cited prior-art references, and no detailed-embodiment passages beyond illustrative figures (FIGS. 1–7) and a partial related-art discussion (the excerpt is explicitly truncated). It therefore does not establish the exact claim scope, claim limitations, prosecution history, or specific SFF process parameters.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:32:17 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6978188. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.