Welcome to our blog.  Here you will find resources for inventors and practitioners.  We may also add a touch of whimsy from time to time.

January 30, 2019

Last week, the Federal Circuit rendered an opinion in Barry v. Medtronic, in which Dr. Barry alleged that Medtronic induced surgeons to infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,670,358 and 8,361,121 both for "System and Method for Aligning Vertebrae in the Amelioration of Aberrant Spinal Column Deviation Conditions."

The patents relates to systems for correcting spinal column anomalies by applying force to multiple vertebrae at once.  The decision is an interesting one because of its detailed analysis of Dr. Barry's activities prior to applying for patent.


February 6, 2018

In Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Hologic, the Federal Circuit looked at U.S. Patent No. 7,226,459.  Smith & Nephew owns the ’459 patent, entitled “Reciprocating Rotary Arthroscopic Surgical Instrument.”  The opinion includes an interesting discussion on the construction of claim 1 of the '459 patent. 

Claim 1 recites:

A surgical instrument, comprising:

a cutting member including an implement for cutting tissue; and

a drive coupled to the cutting member to simultaneously rotate, translate, and reciprocate the cutting member in response to...

October 14, 2017

In Jang v. Boston Sci. Corp., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18825, the Federal Circuit revisited a decade-old controversy.  The case is a good opportunity to see the mechanics behind the ensnarement doctrine and a hypothetical claim analysis. 

The Fed. Circuit reviewed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,922,021, which recites:

1. A stent in a non-expanded state, comprising:

a first expansion strut pair including a first expansion strut positioned adjacent [*4]  to a second expansion strut and a joining strut of the first expansion strut pair th...

Please reload

Recent Posts

Please reload


Please reload