Arthrex wins at PTAB over joint repair patents
Medical device company prevails after requesting inter partes reviews of three related patents | Patent Trial and Appeal Board finds obviousness in patents describing joint tissue repair and stabilisation.
Medical device company Arthrex has succeeded in its bid to challenge three patents related to joint repair implants owned by Florida-based P Tech.
Arthrex filed petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) requesting inter partes review of various claims of each patent, which describe devices and methods for repairing and stabilising tissue and medical implants.
In three final written decisions, delivered on October 13, the PTAB affirmed Arthrex’ claims, declaring unpatentability due to obviousness.
The decisions come more than two years after P Tech sued Arthrex for alleged infringement of six patents, including the three brought before the PTAB (US patents 9,579,129 B2; 9,999,449 B2; and 10,881,440 B2).
The ʼ440 patent relates to fixation of damaged tissues in a patient’s body; the ’449 patent describes augmenting joints of the body, such as the knee; and the ’129 patent describes repairing joints of the body, such as ligament repair.
In the complaint filed in June 2021, P Tech took issue with three products sold by Arthrex and used for medical procedures—the Arthrex InternalBrace for ligament and tendon repair and augmentation; the Arthrex FiberTak “All-Suture” Soft Anchor; and the AR-1529 Suture Tensioner with Tensiometer.
But the case was stayed in June 2022 until the PTAB issued a final written decision.
Ordinary skill
In its decisions of October 13, the PTAB “determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a medical degree and at least two years of experience performing surgeries with implantable medical devices, such as suture anchors.”
Among the arguments made by Arthrex and affirmed by the PTAB were that, for example, claims 1–4 and 6 of the ’449 patent would have been obvious over Van Kampen (US patent 4,834,752, issued in 1989); and Marshall (an article by John Marshall, which discusses “the difficult technical aspects of both primary repairs and secondary reconstructions of ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] lesions alone”).
For the ’440 patent, the PTAB referenced ElAttrache (a patent application), Stone (a patent cited as prior art), and Barber.
For the ’129 patent, the PTAB referenced Boyce (an application which describes implants useful for “the repair or replacement of ligaments, tendons and/or cartilage”) and Lambrecht (US patent 6,425,919 B1, issued in 2002).
The IPR was heard before administrative patent judges Sheridan Snedden, Michelle Wormmeester, and Cynthia Hardman.
Arthrex was represented by Megan Woodworth, Justin Oliver, Robert Bugg and Robert Tapparo at Venable.
P Tech was represented by Robert Evans, Jr, Michael Hartley and Kathleen Markowski Petrillo at Lewis Rice.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
